251–260 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect that translating a work gives you a claim on the translation, which is a creative work. (Mechanical translation doesn't have this effect)
“it is my sincerely held religious belief that no translations in fact happened...”
How can a programmer believe in god is beyond me.
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…
All of the work is in formatting the data to be machine readable, and each bible is <5mb. If you needed this, you could also just download the open source bibles it uses and crawl it yourself which is surely superior in 99% of use cases.
Maybe if I could get the 1950 version of Knox Bible somewhere. (Not the republished, 2012 version, that's on NewAdvent.)
This is neat. This makes me curious about the licencing around popular translations, like the Jerusalem Bible or the NIV; is it not legal to post those translations??
Apparently, the Bible is the Word of God. I'm not sure if copyright applies. Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow." Acts 5:29 says: "Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human…
How can a programmer believe in god is beyond me.
How can a programmer believe in god is beyond me.
You may have heard of him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_a_Computer_Scientist_Ra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” That's a great example, because that verse is saying only punish an eye for an eye, and not a life for an eye. It's a verse requiring proportional punishment. (On top of that it means the value of an eye, not an actual eye.) So quoting it that way actually does remove necessary understanding, which is making the OP's point.
Not sure I understand what you mean? Jesus was known as a rabbi and well-versed in the Scriptures. I don't think he was misconstruing the text he was citing. Here he is contrasting his view of justice ("turn the other cheek") to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace. My main point is that Jesus was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely im…
It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek".
> to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace.
But that's exactly what "eye for an eye" attempts to stop. It's instructing people to seek appropriate justice, and not just attack people who hurt them.
Using that verse, rather hurts his message amongst those who understand the verse.
But it's a great way to show verses used out of context!
> was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.
But they only spoke this way to other Rabbi's, never to people who did not already understand the meaning of the verse.
Riding the Da Vinci and Nostradamus sentiment
I could see that coming back, people flock to these kinds of things in periods of uncertainty.