Promises, promises…..

You hang it all on what a dead man wrote in greek. And not even what jesus wrote, but a man who came after him, writing in something other than the language jesus spoke in. John was a desciple but he was human. His decisions are subject to question, and your belief that it isn’t is, apparently, at its root a religious one. well, fair enough but then you can’t complain that i don’t share all of the same religious underpinnings of your argument.

So revelations is correct, too.

“Simple yes or no. Is there, or isn’t there alot of judgement that goes into translation?”

The question is too broad for a simple yes or no. It depends on the word or passage in question.

“Whether a thing is called singular or plural is a matter of judgment.”

NO. (Here that simple answer IS possible.) It’s a matter of NUMBER.

“it was considered proper to say that “The United States are…” after the civil war, it became accepted to say “The United States is…””

This example is not relevant to the Biblical passage in question.

“you can see it all as one big revelation, or you can see it as a group of them.

It’s not a matter of what you or I “see”. It’s a matter of what JOHN WROTE.

“You say the greeks made one decision on the subject”

No. I’m saying THE Greek (the language) has the word “apocalypse” in the singular. And this is essential to a correct understanding of the book.

You’re like a dog with a tasteless old bone. It’s ridiculous to cling to your arguments. No one who actually knows Greek is going to buy them for a minute. You made a simple mistake. You were corrected by those with more knowledge in the area than yourself. And yet you refuse to admit the mistake! Making mistakes is just part of being human. Get over it and get used to it.

Now I really am done. I’ve been drawn back into this argument too many times already – my mistake.

Simple yes or no. Is there, or isn’t there alot of judgement that goes into translation?

Whether a thing is called singular or plural is a matter of judgment. As i mentioned above, for instance, at one time it was considered proper to say that “The United States are…” after the civil war, it became accepted to say “The United States is…” In other words, before the civil war the US was described as a collection of states, whereas after it was considered one unit. That is a judgement call and indeed a political call, too.

The exact same issues exists with revelations/revelation. you can see it all as one big revelation, or you can see it as a group of them. You say the greeks made one decision on the subject. Fair enough. But it doesn’t put the issue in stone and a later person can honestly disagree on the subject and that is all it is.

“Really, parsing a translation is just silliness.”

Yes, it is. Unless you’re translating. Then it’s essential.

Missed this one. I think you were in moderation limbo:

> And anyone who’s actually bothered to read the Bible, the history of Bible, and its various translations will laugh at you for being uneducated and proudly ignorant.

You can’t prove me wrong, so you are just left declaring I am anyway. Whatever.

> All Christians (except you) want Jesus to return.

First, when talking about humans, “all” is usually wrong unless it is a tautology. Sheesh.

Second, I didn’t say I didn’t want jesus to return. I said I didn’t think it meant the end of the world. Man you are just slow.

> The Christian Zionists believe that the only way to get Christ to come back is to start Armageddon.

Well, first, notice again you are subdividing off the Christian fundies from the Christian Zionists. Because of course not every Christian who supports isreal against its enemies buys into any of this—not even all of the fundies.

Second, you incorrectly assert that they believe they can hurry the end of days on. I dispute that claim.

Third, you incorrectly state that indeed the only way Jesus can return is if THEY start armaggeddon. As though you could stave it off indefinitely by, what? Destroying isreal? Do you consider God so easy to manipulate? Most Christians do not.

> And the first step in starting Armageddon is to get all Jews back to Israel.

Wrong. It is God deciding its time for it to happen. And he can do so with or without our help.

> The Christian Zionists spend millions of dollars to get Jews to Israel. Therefore, even if their intent is good, they are still trying to start Armageddon.

But you still haven’t proven that they are sending them there in order to start Armageddon.

Take this example. Imagine a white guy is an unreconstructed racist and he shoots a black man in the leg. So you call that a hate crime, right?

Well, not necessarily. What the black man admitted that he was coming at that white man with a knife, with the intent to harm, when the white man shot him in the leg? Then racist or not, that white man has a right to defend himself, right?

It is not enough to say a person has a motive that might lead to bad intent, but you have to prove the bad intent actually motivates the conduct. That is what you keep missing in this discussion.

Now they blab all the time in making their pitches, so I am sure it wouldn’t be hard to find if it existed. Find me a quote where they say, “its important for us to send these jews to zion to bring on the coming of Jesus Christ.” If that’s their motivation, why is it through all of these discussions, you can’t come up with a single quote like that?

> If you cannot understand the line of reasoning above

It works on its own terms. The problem is that you haven’t established that any Christians, let alone a sizable portion of them, ascribe to the specific theological views necessary to put that together, including the hidden assumption about how prone God might be to man’s manipulation.

> You are unable to refute my arguments

No, I already refuted them. Logos refuted them more. You are just too slow to figure it out.

> Fact: Armenians are “good guys” who are fighting “the good fight” against “bad guys” and they’ve been victims of genocide.

Except for the genocide part, none of those are facts. They are opinions.

> And yet no money is spent on Armenians by Christian Zionists

Not even a single cent? I can assure you again that your absolutism is misplaced.

> Just admit that you were wrong and move on, Mr. Bible Scholar.

No, sir, Wikipedia Brown.

> What I’m saying is that Armenia is as deserving of support from its fellow Christians in the US as Israel and, yet, Israel gets all the support.

Deserves isn’t even the whole picture, but thank you for playing.

> And, rationally, Armenians should get more support, because they are fellow Christians and Israelis are not.

Actually, that kind of tribalism is neither rational nor Christian. Jesus teaches us that our neighbor is the good Samaritan, not the guy who happens to look like you or believe what you do. But thank you for that window into your thinking.

I know it is getting to be a tired trope to say that seeing a person as an “other” is a sign of some kind of bigotry, but it really applies in your case. See the Jane Goodall stuff below.

> So the support that US Christians give to Israel is not because Israel is “one of the good guys”, but for other reasons.

Which you claim is a desire to bring on the end of days, without having adequately eliminated those other reasons.

> My point was that

That you think Christians are small minded bigots who only care about their own “kind.” Projection can he a fascinating phenomen.

> Tibet was a bad example for me to use because its culture is too alien for people of the West.

No, that is just it. Its not all that alien at all. Its government is fairly typical theocratic monarchy with the only twist being that it is not succession by blood but by reincarnation which probably in truth more resembles the papal selection than either the pope nor the Buddhists are likely to admit. If you ignore all that mumbo jumbo it is actually drearily familiar.

> That’s why I used Armenia instead.

After getting slapped around on Tibet.

> Logos1j1 did not explain why Israel

He explained several of the differences between Isreal and Armenia.

> so you’re forgiven for thinking…

…something I neither said nor implied. But we are getting a window into your thinking. You fundamentally don’t understand Christians and fundamentally don’t identify with them on any level. There is no attempt to take these views seriously and understand what we actually believe. So indeed, you are like jane goodall and her chimps, at least in your mind, considering us a subject of detached study, with an ever-present recognition of your innate (perceived) superiority.

> The reason why Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists are actively working to get the Jews to go back to Israel is because that’s one of the initial steps to get Jesus to return.

Notice that unlike your previous sentence, you don’t declare that this is a fact. That is because it is not a proven fact that any significant percentage of them see it that way. I have repeatedly challenged you to prove your claims and you have failed. You have tried and failed to attack the simpler explanations, and you have failed to summon a single prominent Christian leader who says “let’s send the jews to isreal so we can bring about the end of days.” Instead all you have is a surmise that seems logical enough to you, but utterly disconnected with any, you know, facts.

Logos

You can insist all you want, but the fact is you could call that book a series of revelations or one big one and both would be arguably correct. Really, parsing a translation is just silliness.

The recent shooting in the synagogue had the potential of starting an ethnic civil war. Credit the mayor of the city with coming out and stating that this was not a hate crime. He did a lot to cool the sentiment in the city and disarming a potential explosive situation.

On the other hand, I wonder what would have been the black response if the headline read, “Two blacks shot at church by a white man, or a Jew.” I seriously doubt that they would have been so restrained.