Does the Bible need a makeover? A group of 20 spiritual leaders from around the country thought so, and they convened recently to update the New Testament. The result combines traditional and newly discovered texts, including ancient Christian stories of women leading their own congregations. San Francisco-based Presbyterian minister Bruce Reyes-Chow was a part of this group, and he joins us to discuss the book, “A New New Testament.”

Bruce Reyes-Chow, Presbyterian minister and founding pastor of Mission Bay Community Church
Hal Taussig, editor of "A New New Testament"; visiting professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York

  • Hewhay

    There is no credible evidence whatsoever that any gods exist. Because the “holy” books are based on the assumption of some god(s)’ existence, these books contain merely fantasies and manipulations.

    Any person planning to rewrite a “holy” book is merely slathering a new layer of self-serving fantasies and lies on top of the old, and juxtaposing fraud with fraud. This is a mistake as it compounds the error, worsens the “holy” book’s lack of credibility and sidesteps the vital issue that religion is based on fantastical nonsense while ignoring the important role of religion in dominating the common man on behalf of the elites.

    Every single day that a person labors to understand a holy book’s teachings, be it an old book or a new one, is a day wasted, thrown into an abyss of self-serving delusion, meaninglessness, and emasculating submission to false authority.

    • Ayn Marx 666`

      Nonsense: those holy books contain some insights into humans that are still valid even though their first principles are inconsistent with reality. One not need believe in Josh Josefsson’s divinity or sanity in order to see that our own society is run almost entirely as the Parable of the Talents would suggest.

      The Ancients weren’t stupid, or at least not those whose brains weren’t damaged by malnutrition—and living as they did with less technology and nearly no media, they might well be more in touch with at least some aspects of reality (see: ‘From where does food come?’, and ‘Is shite important?’) than I and (I will hazard) most of us. They certainly were over-influenced by the beliefs that made their to-us-horrible existences more tolerable, but I am not free of mine own….

      • Hewhay

        The ancients did have some wisdom, but the holy books are infamous for their support of murder and bigotry, not to mention strife with anyone who “thinks different”.

        In short, if you want wisdom from the Ancients, go to works of the philosophers and proto-scientists, not to the nonsense-filled tomes written by priests.

        And remember, many enlightened Ancients were critical of religion and god-belief. Atheism is ancient, too.

        • Bob Fry

          You judge their culture–which, yes, did support murder, genocide, bigotry, and slavery–with the eyes of 21st century US culture. That’s silly and pointless.

          • Cassidy

            So you’re saying modern religion doesn’t support murder, genocide, bigotry, and slavery? Islam supports slavery today. All religions encourage bigotry today.

        • BethRFinch

          Atheism may be ancient, but that just means it’s old… like religion. What’s your point? You can’t prove that deities do not exist any more than a religious person can prove that deities do exist. Yet you insist that you are right about something you take as truth even though you have no evidence yourself.

    • aa aa

      You’re missing much of the point. People, including non-Christians, should have some familiarity with the NT because it’s an influential set of writings that give us our only historical information about some of the most influential people of all time (Jesus of Nazareth & Paul of Tarsus). As an historian, I encounter all sorts of beliefs in ancient and medieval texts that I personally find fantastical, like miracles. But I don’t conclude from this that I shouldn’t read these texts. If historians refused to read anything that contained unproveable notions like God, immortality of the soul or whatever they would cut themselves off from their primary sources and thus lose any real knowledge not only about Jesus or Paul but Socrates, Henry II , Charlemagne, the Empress Irene or Joan of Arc or.many of the other influential figures and events of the distant past.

  • Gary Kay

    Freedom does include the right to believe or disbelieve. As long as people don’t harm others (and the great majority of believers don’t harm others) they have the right to believe. And you have the right to disbelieve. Be glad you live in a nation that gives you that right.

    • Hewhay

      That’s a bogus argument. Why would I accept the nonsense claims of religion here in the USA as acceptable just because in another worse country, stupid and violent theists want to harm anyone who thinks differently, including one another? That’s like saying be glad you pay so little taxes, because in XYZ country they pay 90%. You’re running away from the real issue: The nonsense, escapist claims of religion and the foolishness of believing them.

      • BethRFinch

        Believe what you wish. Nobody is asking you to conform, so stop with the ridicule. There’s no way to prove that a deity exists, just as atheists can’t prove that a deity does not exist. I get just as annoyed by self-righteous believers as I get with self-righteous non-believers. Cut it out.

    • Bob Fry

      Simply by voting Republican–which most evangelicals do–they are harming others.

      • Cassidy

        Like the bumper sticker says, Friend don’t let friends vote Republican.

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Intrigues me that one never reads/hears of Muslims suggesting the Koran/Qur’an needs updating or challenging. Same in Judaism, Buddhism and the Hindu faith. Why?

    The fact Bruce Reyes-Chow is from the liberal leaning side of the Presbyterian church one wonders why does he even follow the Bible which is pretty conservative in many ways?

    • Beth,

      I think this goes back the deeper argument of interpretation and how one defines authority. For instance, while I do get why you might believe that the bible is conservative in many ways, I also see many ways that the Bible is incredibly revolutionary, freeing and progressive (as opposed to liberal).

      As for why you never hear of other traditions engaging in this, I do not know if is because the conversation is not happening or if we simple do not hear about it.

      • Beth Grant DeRoos

        The Bible to me is simply the reflections of those in the era when they were written. Thus an historical book in many ways.

        Times change. One no longer sees seizures as being from enemy/satan. Pork is no longer an unclean meat because of the clean ways swine are raised.One wears clothes made of mixed cloth.

        Have always wondered why Christianity wasn’t called Paulism since so much of what many Christians believe were words Paul spoke not Christ.

        Am reminded of the Jefferson Bible which Thomas Jefferson made, where he took the words only attributed to Christ, which if one reads them, one comes way with a less conservative viewpoint and a much more compassionate and common sense way of thinking, living.

        Also think should any Muslim challenge the Koran/Qur’an they would risk death since devout Muslims believe the Koran/Qur’an is from Mohammed and no one questions him.

        • thucy

          Beth, I have every confidence that if you’re raising pork, it’s clean. But industrial pork production is toxic.
          Also, as someone who actually lived alongside Muslims here in the US and Europe, I have to say it sounds like you don’t know any? They’re not what you persist in portraying them as.

          • Beth Grant DeRoos

            I don’t eat meat, and I do know some great Muslims. Just am curious what the guests thought. So many things folks believed even a hundred years ago are no longer believed.

      • white elephant

        Bruce, you are not hearing conversations ongoing in islam because the media is blasting the most extreme/worse minority interpretation of islam, while powers to be are busy bombing the muslims. divide and conquer is the name of the game. 99% of the muslims do not support violence. God does not authorize killing anyone, period. The only time a muslim can kill anyone is if they are attacked, then in self-defense, they can kill. Muslims should not initiate any war, nor should they be the aggressor, under any circumstance. So those who use religion to stir up troops have abused christianity, judism, and islam alike. but this has nothing to do with God’s message. It has to do with politics, human greed for power, control, and riches.

        • aa aa

          ” The only time a muslim can kill anyone is if they are attacked, then in self-defense,”

          Not true. Muslims from the time of 634 onward killed many, many people–including many civilians, in the process of conquering the Levant, North Africa, Persia, and later parts of southern Europe and India from non-Muslims. Those expansive conquests were absolutely NOT self-defense. And even our earliest sources reveal that Muslims justified those OFFENSIVE conquests by claiming that God commanded it. (Read Sebeos, Doctrina nuper baptizati, & other sources detailed in R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as others Saw It.) By the time Muslims compiled the Sunni canonical hadith and the the earliest biography of Muhammad,(Ibn Ishaq) after 750, they actually portrayed Muhammad as COMMANDING offensive attacks on the Persian and E. Roman (Byzantine) empires. And Muslim leaders continued to justify offensive conquests–during which they certainly killled and enslaved many, many civiians–against non-Muslim states at least down to the 1683. The only reason we see fewer big conquests by Muslims is that they became too weak to conquer Western countries any more, and Western powers were thus able to move into areas where Muslim powers had been making offensive conquests (like parts of India, parts of Africa & the Balkans).,

          • white elephant

            aa aa, Perhaps i was not clear enough in explaining that what people/leaders have done in the name of Islam, has very little to do with the teachings. Just like the inquisition and Crusades in Christianity, all the killing and destruction done in the name of Christ and Christianity, had very little to do with the teachings of Jesus. The only valid book for teachings of Mohammad is the Quran. Mohammad never was engaged in any conflict before the age of 40. He was a merchant. Mohammad died at the age of 62. This leaves about 22 years of preaching. In this 22 years, he was in 4 battles at most. All of which were local (between Mecca and Medina) and had nothing to do with expansion of territory, or forcing any non-muslims to convert. ” there is no compulsion in religion” 2:256 Quran. Any Battle during the time of Mohammad was in self-defense. After Mohammad died. Yes, there were many battles, killing, and territorial expansions in the name of Islam, just like Christianity. Opportunistic, egocentric maniacs abound in history. I am certain that Jesus and Mohammad would never approve of such brutality. Even to this day, so many unbelievable acts of violence and horror are done under the banner of religion (be it Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Surely, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad would not endorse this. Ignorance, greed, and ego unfortunately weaves terrible acts. It is all too easy to whip up ignorant, oppressed people under this banner or that. It should not be as easy to get educated people to accept such behavior as endorsed by God.

            “Not equal is the good response and the bad response. You shall resort to the nicest possible response. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy, may become your best friend.”41:34 Quran

    • Ayn Marx 666`

      Reform and Reconstructionist, and in a quieter way Conservative, Jews challenge the traditional interpretation of the Law all the time, and the interpretation of the Law is most of it—“sola scriptora” is laughable, as only men and women put the Law into practice, God not bothering recently (just ask anyone killed for adultery in Cauvin’s Geneva who would having walked with a bes din or under canon law) .

      There have often been variant schools of interpretation and variant canons of Islam and Buddhism—not of Quran-as-canon or some of the sutras, but there are varying acceptances of hadith and sunnah, and some of the sutras….

      Christendom’s being more lax is more a matter of its temporal power’s having been tempered by the Enlightenment and the competition induced by people’s finally having half-decent lives than in any virtue inherent in itself.

      • aa aa

        On a specific note, what is your evidence that people were killed for adultery in Calvin’s Geneva? According to the scholarly literature I read, the death penalty for adultery by ordinary people (as opposed to a queen like Anne Boleyn) was extremely rare anywhere in early modern Europe, and I’ve don’t remember any such claim about Calvin’s Geneva in scholarly literature by E. William Monter, Peter Spitz, Natalie Davis, or M. Wiesner. Early modern Protestants did not deviate greatly from medieval canon law standards about punishments for sexual crimes like adultery, which was punished, but very very rarely with death.

        And on a more general note, saying that Christendom had no inherent laxness but is “lax” because of the Enlightenment begs the question: why did Christendom have an Englightenment at all, but not, for example, the dar al- Islam? (And why arguably did Buddhism not need an Enlightenmentat all). There was an inherent difference: Buddhism was probably never as wedded to state powers as the Abrahamic religions. And Christianity certainly only got wedded to state and military power through the accident of history (Constantine’ conversion), whereas Muslims, modeling themselves partly on the post-Theodosian Roman state, partly on the Sassanians, and partly on some idealized Hebraic ideal, deliberately wedded state power, conquest and religion very early, in 634, certainly, when they starting conquering land from the Romans and Persians in the name of religion, and possibly as early as 622, if we believe Muslims’ own traditional account of Muhammad’s turn to political and military,power. A sustained separation of religion, law, military force, and other state apparati still awaits the Islamic world.

    • white elephant

      Muslims do exist that do
      not follow the hadith or sunna or sharea law. Muslims exist that are not
      dividing up the one united belief of worshipping God alone. They do not
      consider themselves shea or sunni. You, my dear, do not hear from them because
      the media controls who gets to voice opinions, the so called ‘experts’ who do
      not speak with any authority tell you what serves them best. It seems counter
      to the current ‘flavor of the day’ to have anyone think of islam as a peaceful
      religion who upholds the 10 commandments and all the teachings of the prophets
      prior to Mohammad. Muslims honor Ibrahim, Noah, Moses, Aaron, Jacob, David,
      Solomon, John the Baptist, Jesus, and all of God’s messengers sent to us at
      various time in history. This killing, torture, and violence is never
      advocated by Jesus, Mohammad, or Moses.

  • Ayn Marx 666`

    Are they retaining the bit where Jesus says that not one jot (yud) or tittle (tav/sav pei/fei dot) will pass along away from the Law of until the universe ends…the “Reader’s Digest” condensed Bible did….

    As far as gods’ existences go, they are obviously all in our heads, but then again so are Good, Evil, Rights, Justice, Beauty, any government, property, the Self itself…so just because they have no objective correlates doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about them. Stirner mocked all such as “spooks in the head”, but this mockery was rooted in his own mind-spook that privileged physical existence over social existence when very often one precedes and determines the other (e.g.: witchcraft—Wiccan, pagan, Satanist, traditional, made up after reading cheap paperbacks—is not ‘real’ in the sense of having any _direct_, physical, effect, but millions have died for being thought to practise it, and some still do die therefor) .

    Religious belief matters, it’s not going to go away soon (though life-extension, intelligence enhancement, and the end of Scarcity would help), and therefore I applaud these people for trying to hack an old system in an attempt to make it more humane (hating cruelty and needless pain being a much-loved mind-spook of my own).

    • You might want to study up on your Bible there Ayn. Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall pass until all is fulfilled. That sir happened 2,000 years ago.
      Now don’t ask me to offer a Bible study on that , you use the vast intelligence that apparently God gave you and figure it out for yourself.
      Hint: You might start with the Book of Hebrews.

      • Cassidy

        Evolution provided intelligence, and when people fail to use it, they imagine there is a god.

  • stevedaly

    The way our culture views the bible needs a make over, or we wouldn’t need to ask a question like “Does the Bible need a makeover?”. Why does it seem strange to say “Does Hamlet need a makeover?

  • thucy

    I love that people continue to reinterpret the bible, just as they continue to reinterpret Shakespeare and Aeschylus. And I have to respectfully disagree with Beth, who insists that the bible is essentially a conservative text.
    Jesus was, really, the ultimate Jewish radical socialist feminist. I mean, the guy claimed 2,000 years ago that women were equal to men? And overturned the money changers tables? What kind of pinko mishegoss is that? He was the Bill Kunstler of his era!

  • Who did the Hebrew translations?

  • I’d love to hear more from Bruce about the pastoral concerns involved in this work. He started a congregation that is rather famously “young adult focused.” What was he hearing from them about the Bible that encouraged him to take on this work?

    This is a great interview. Thank you for it.

  • Chris OConnell

    I wonder what they will be doing with the Big Lebowski in a couple of thousand years.

    • thucy

      “I told that Kraut down at the league office a $&?!ing thousand times, I DON’T ROLL ON SHABBOS!”
      That quote will be sung as part of the divine liturgy, alongside: “You want a toe, dude? I can get you a toe.”
      It will be GREAT!

    • geraldfnord

      The Dude’s followers will be slaughtering the followers of St Stupid and J.R. “Bob” Dobbs in the name of being nice and hanging loose.

    • Hewhay

      Or Steve Jobs for that matter. Maybe they’ll mistakenly conflate the two, because it makes their escapism feel better. The Steve abides.

      • thucy

        How could you type such a thing, you infidel! Comparing Steve Jobs to the Dude constitutes sacrilege.
        There is only one! There is only one… Dude.

  • $18685506

    Can Christian Men Admit Their Mistakes?

    Inaccurate translation of the Bible is at the root of modern misunderstandings about God’s word on women.

    It was Calvinist theologian John Knox who wrote: “Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man.” He formed that opinion because of specific passages in both the Old and New Testament.

    What if those passages in Genesis and various of Paul’s letters had an entirely different meaning in their Hebrew and Greek original form? Surely there would be a rush to publish the correct translation of the Good Book as quickly as possible and recall all copies of the King James version.

    And none too soon, considering that the Western world was alerted to these clerical goofs in a book published 72 years ago. Katherine Bushnell, M.D., wrote God’s Word to Women in her later years, after a full life that included starting the Anchorage Mission in Chicago for abandoned women, helping to end white slavery in Wisconsin’s lumber camps, and working in India to stop government-controlled prostitution.

    In those days, a very devout Christian like Dr. Bushnell learned Hebrew and Greek in order to read the Bible in the original. Dr. Bushnell was confounded by the inconsistencies in Genesis and some of Paul’s epistles. She followed key biblical verses back through their previous incarnation, before they were set in concrete in the inaccurate King James version.

    For instance, the Hebrew word that was translated as “rib” in the King James translation of that famous Genesis story appears 42 times in the Old Testament — but it is translated as “rib” only in the two Genesis verses about the origin of women. Far more often, the word is translated as “side.” Isn’t a single bone different from half of a body?

    Many religious people then and now share the view that the original human, “made in God’s image,” was both male and female. In other words, God isn’t male or female, but both. Then, as God’s creation, this androgynous being, drifted from his/her intended path, God separated the human in half, so that the more
    wayward half could be brought into line by the more righteous half.

    However, God, being new at this, hadn’t counted on codependence. To oversimplify (and with tongue in cheek), instead of staying in the Garden, waiting until Adam’s time-out brought him to his senses and he earned his way back to Eden with good behavior, Eve followed him out and we’ve been coping with her wimpiness ever since.

    Another mistranslation Bushnell found was Genesis 3:16, “[God said] I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

    A correct translation would be: “God said, ‘A snare set by the serpent (not Me) hath increased thy sorrow and thy sighing; in sorrow thou wilt bring forth children, and if thou art loyal to thy husband even when he turns away from Me, then over time this will allow him to make and keep thee his inferior.'”

    Dr. Bushnell gave a lengthy, minutely detailed, multi-leveled explanation of how the original text had “sighing” (HRN in Hebrew) but was mistranslated into “conception” (HRJWN) and Bible scholars justified this by saying HRN was a contraction of HRJWN.

    Dr. Bushnell says, “Indeed? And is one half the human family to be placed at the mercy of the other half on such flimsy claim as this! So could Rehoboam have sent a man to the gallows, instead of
    sending him to the gaol.”

    The Apostle Paul was also mistranslated. 1 Corinthians 14:34 says, “Let your women keep silence in the churches. If they have questions, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

    Back when letters took months to arrive, it was Paul’s habit to repeat his flock’s questions when answering. But, since there is no question mark in ancient Greek, a mistranslation arose because their question, in later copies, was attributed to him; “Shouldn’t women keep quiet in church, like it says in the Hebrew tradition, and accept their husband’s point of view on everything?” became the 2000-year-old prohibition. Then his actual answer, which was curt and sarcastic (a trait of Paul), became a non sequitur that has puzzled theologians ever since: “Did God’s word come from you or to you? And did He give it to you (men) only or to all in the church?” In other words, Paul was a feminist.

    Dr. Bushnell saw the limits of her male colleagues. “Prejudice blinds men even in their treatment of the Word of God, if a faulty rendering coincides with their preconceptions.”

    She also said, “Knowing …the strong forces of a long-indulged habit, it need not surprise us if we discover that men have gone to their Bibles (as they did on the slavery questions), to find warrant for what they were already doing, not to find a clue as to what they should do.”

    But the clueless Vatican is sticking to the mistranslation. There will no female priests, no female pope. Ever.

    American women got the vote 75 years ago. Women head corporations, nations, universities, and are approaching parity in education, government, and industry. We’ve come a long way, but here is so much farther to go.

    To us, the biblical quotes that justified slavery seem quaint and ridiculous; so shall modern day fundamentalists’ favorite quotes on women’s place in society seem quaint and ridiculous once a generation has been raised on an accurate translation of the Bible.

    • That’s a great questions and i think that many Chrsitiand traditions have been attempting to arrive at translations that better reflect both the intent and translations. My tradition for the most part has moved away from the literal nature of scriptural reading. Hangover still exists, but, we are trying.

  • white elephant

    The Quran is the Scripture for muslims, this is considered the word of God. BUT what is Islamist? who is a Muslim. If the media defines these words, they have equated these words to terrorism. I do not know of such a religion. Jesus, Muhammad, Moses never advocated mass killing, bombing, suicide bombing, toture,… Does there need to be reform in hadith or sunna. Absolutely. We can do without them, they are nothing but some stories and traditions and they are not part of the message of Quran. The Bible and the Quran have so much in common. We should celebrate all we have in common as the message for all humanity.

  • aa aa

    What is disconcerting is the way the spokespeople privilege the issue of what THEY as 21st century Americans find spiritually or literarily attractive over the crucial issue of date and geographical provenance. Unquestionably 1st century texts like “1 Clement” are therefore more important to “add,” if one is going to add anything at all, than mid- to late second century texts like “Paul & Thecla, or texts of unknown date (sometime from the second to third century) like Thunder, Perfect Mind.

    And BTW, that’s why Muslims should not be involved in deciding what would go into “a New New Testament”: they are guided by Qur’an & later Islamic texts, which being seventh century or much later, have have no historical information about Jesus of Nazareth or the early church, and thus they have no bearing whatsoever on what should be in “A New New Testament,”.

    As an historian of the late antique period, I must say nothing is worse than culturally-liberal contemporary Americans privileging what THEY find more interesting or “deep” over the actually relevant, although possibly duller, texts. (Relevant in this case means the right time & place first century and very early second century Mediterranean texts). That’s exactly how historical persons, places or times are so badly distorted or misrepresented. (Modern political and cultural concerns can wreak havoc here: the concern to make women’s voices heard, for example, can make the early church seem more female-dominated than it actually was). Primary sources, even “dull” or politically incorrect ones, are the only valid material to understand the particular topics at hand (the earliest church, the historical Jesus).

    By definition, early 21st Americans in general, let alone those with the specific cultural biases that the spokespeople clearly have, are frightfully presumptuous about pronouncing on a “New New Testament”, when so many Christians today and in the past come from such different societies. I’m sure the guests would be quick to call the the ancient Mediterranean people (mostly male), who over time, informally developed a canon by use, similarly presumptuous. But unlike them, those “canon-makers” actually lived in societies far closer in time, language,space, sensibility and polity to a New Testament world–including a “New New Testament” world. (They were part of the actual early church!) And they actually had better access to many of the “alternative” texts that they could have put, through frequent use, into a canon, but did not, than these self-styled “New New Testament” makers.

    Finally, the fact that the spokespeople want to claim that “most” of the current NT texts are second century is not at all reassuring from the point of view of us late antique historians. The only probably second century texts in the current Western NT are the Pastorals (1,2 Timothy & Titus) and 2 Peter.(That’s 4 of 27, not “most.”). All 4 NT gospels are dated 66-100 AD, with Mark the earliest. It used to be thought John was mid second century, but an Egyptian papyrus scrap of it (obviously not an autograph) dated 120 AD invalidated that theory. Paul’s undisputed letters date to the 50s AD, and those, along with all the others attributed to him except the Pastorals, were published around 90 AD so are not second century. Hebrews is certainly first century since it was used by “1 Clement,” itself dated 90-95. Scholars agree Revelation is 90-95.

  • Hewhay

    Yada, yada yada, same ol tired atheist line. You see your real problem is that there is no credible evidence that God does NOT exist. Until then the best you can muster is ” Given the extremely limited knowledge and lack of evidence to the contrary I can only say that I do not believe that God exists”
    To say categorically, “There is no God,” is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, You must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

    If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don’t know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist.
    The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an “agnostic” – one who claims he “doesn’t know” if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is “ignoramus.”

    So, stay off the God posts and stick to what you know instead of sharing your ignorance with the rest of the world. Head on over too the evolution posts where the rest of your buddies hang out.

    • thucy

      “It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is “ignoramus.”

      Seriously? I don’t think the words are at all equivalent. Where did you study Greek?

      • Guest

        I don’t give linguistic lessons to fools. Note that you don’t “think” they are equivalent.
        Study up and then post your own lesson.

      • Just for fun , I’ll give you a freebie Thucy

        Latin, literally ‘we do not know’ (in legal use ‘we take no notice of it’), from ignorare
        Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a-
        + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know

        Next time the linguistic lesson is going to have to be prepaid. I charge $250 per hour minimum 2 hours.

        • thucy

          You need a better dictionary, Sport. There is a pointed difference between “agnostic”, which refers specifically to unknowability, and “ignoramus”, which describes someone who does not know that which is ostensibly knowable.
          The former deals with the limitations of knowledge; the latter describes an individual who is unaware of accepted knowledge.
          In other words, you can be an ignoramus when it comes to linguistics because you yourself are ignorant of commonly understood definitions. But we would not describe you as agnostic about linguistics – it would constitute poor usage.

          • thucy

            One more note: if you had studied Greek or Latin, Sport, or even if you had a better dictionary, you’d know that agnostic is not a classical Greek word, but a 17th-century English construction based on Greek. Similarly, ignoramus is a 17th-century English construction based on Latin.
            No charge for that, Sport, the nuns always taught me to share.

          • Sorry THUCY, you are still thinking too much.
            I won’t give more detailed linguistic etymology for free now. Nor will I argue how incorrect you are. I can send you a paypal link if you would like.

    • Hewhay

      East bay, prove your god exists. Then I’ll believe.

      The burden of proof is on he who makes fantastical claims *not* on he who is skeptical.

      You sound like you sell used cars for a living. Your god is like a junky old car that you claim runs, and I say PROVE IT.

      But you cannot prove anything about your god, so all your talk is mere másturbation.

      • I don’t need to prove anything to you Hewhay. You are the “smart” one who feels like he knows everything. So PROVE it or shut up and go play with the other monkey brains on the evolution threads.

        • thucy

          Wow, is that how your church taught you to express yourself? That’s sad.

          • Assume much there thucy? I would offer though that scripture is clear that when dealing with folks like Hewhay instruction should be “reprove, rebuke and exhort” in clear and unmistakable language. There is a manner in which the family of God is to relate to one another within the family of God (Hewhay is not in this family) and another manner in which we are to relate to those who would teach and profess untruth in attempts to lead away from God. They are called false teachers and if you will “Pharisees” and ungodly men. You know minions of Satan? I don’t think you will find a single instruction in scripture whereby Jesus was all nicey nice with such people nor where we are to tolerate such within our midst. Quite the opposite.
            Don’t like the direct and not so subtle language?

      • Hewhay might also take note that I really don’t care what hewhay believes. Therefore my need to prove anything to him is nill.
        Hewhay is just a big mouth with an opinion that wants to shout that opinion to the very people that really don’t care what he thinks.

        • Cassidy

          I judge you to be 11 years old.

  • Guest

    2 Timothy 4:1-5 is a perfect passage for this article / subject.

  • 2 Timothy 4:1-5 is a great passage for this article. Fits right in.
    Proverbs 18:2 is custom made for Hewhay

  • Hewhay… Why are you posting on this thread? Maybe a bit insecure?
    Q: What is so ironic about atheists?
    A: They are always talking about God

    • BethRFinch

      And they’re always convinced they’re right… even when they have no indisputable evidence themselves.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor