191–200 of 308 posts
https://www.davidwparker.com/2010/03/04/parsing-bible-search...
It was a neat little project at the time, but due to copyrights, I didn't get as far as I would have liked... I had planned on making a `diff` tool for bible verses between versions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I beg to differ. I don't believe in God and see him as a man made concept, but I do believe it is possible to have ethics and morality outside of religion. Proof of this is that there are many cultures, historical and present day that do not share this book or any other and that do possess ethics and morality, besides the obvious counter example of atheists.
> I beg to differ. I think the point was not that ethics and morality are impossible without religion, at least not exactly. I think the questions were a little different, e.g., where did the ideas come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure: https://marginalie.hypotheses.org/181 It's been discussed on HN a couple of times as well (though not that particular link as far as I know).
So, it seems like you're claiming that some scammers believe that some religious people are gullible. That's certainly true, if not particularly interesting! Are you aiming at a broader argument or more expansive claim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good observation, but I think it's overstated. I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions, they mainly read it in much longer sections covering some topic. Chapter and verse come in when you want to quote something, or shorthand something, or refer someone to a specific and narrow section. In this usage, it's very similar to the way we cite Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer…
> I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions It's common to quote short passages (1-3 verses) in society, either to prove a point (often missing context) or in a "thought for the day" manner. Many homes have wall hangings with scripture that the owner has never read in the bible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's amazing how most don't read their "most important book". They just wait for others to tell them the pretty verses they found. It's sort of like modern day social media. People don't actually read the content, they wait for others to comment on the headline only. This is the case for every major religion out there. I live in the middle east. I've known hundreds of people personally in my life. How many have act…
Well, In Somalia we do read the Quran. In fact, virtually every child memorizes it from cover to cover before starting school. But if you mean understanding what it says, then you have a point.
This is exactly what I meant. Reading without understanding is awarded with sevab points. That is the reason I created a word by word translation so that no meaning is hidden behind clerical authority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Christians, in particular, would believe Christianity man made. After all, God became incarnate and fully human!
That would depend upon a belief in the doctrine of the trinity, which while mainstream is far from universal. As a Christadelphian I refute the doctrine of the trinity: it simply doesn’t appear in the Bible; it was developed over the course of time in roughly 100–325 AD. (Even apart from that I doubt that trinitarians would go along with your interpretation, but the whole thing of the trinity is confusing and depends…
I find it strange that you have a default translation. I expect the sort of crowd who would most likely use this will also be very particular about which translation is being served.
I think a default does actually make sense: if you don’t provide one, people will start by getting confused, and if they get past that will try to decide which version they should use, and probably go with the KJV as a name that they recognise—but the KJV is simply not a good translation any more, mostly because English has changed and it hasn’t but also by reason of its textual sources. The WEB family¹ is superior i…
Besides, just as a verse is part of a book, so is a book part of a translation. It makes as much sense to declare which bible to query a verse from as it does to declare which book or verses to query for.
One of the most interesting things to happen to the scriptures is their balkanization into verses. We generally don't atomize other writings that way, and when folks read the scriptures as a series of disconnected logical propositions all sorts of wackiness ensues. What would it look like to have an API for the collected works of Jane Austen that returned snippets (some of which are not even complete sentences)? How…
> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world On the contrary, the atomization and recombination of the text into new meanings is highly characteristic of Midrash. Of course, this isn't the same as the "prooftext" hermeneutic I think you're criticizing.
Meh. I would really love to see the day when religion stops being more than a fantasy fictional story. The project is nice, but I dislike its promotion of religion, and christianity in particular. This story has caused way too much suffering already. I wonder who will first use this project for children indoctrination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't need to abandon our faith to achieve that. In fact, we already had a golden age[1] where we leapfrogged most civilizations. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
Yes, and then you were leap-elephanted by the enlightenment. Keep up.