Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 110,111 (click to see context) from:
* Paul derailing his own trial by inciting a theological argument amongst his Sadducee and Pharisee judges.
to:
* Paul derailing his own trial by inciting a theological argument amongst his Sadducee and Pharisee judges.
judges. One half, the Sadducees, don't believe in anything supernatural, whereas the Pharisees, which include Paul, do, so when Paul says he believes in the resurrection of the dead, the court is split into two camps and things get so bad that the Roman soldiers have to transfer him to Rome to hear his case.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 96,97 (click to see context) from:
---> “[[BluntYes Yes,” said Jesus]], “what sorrow also awaits you experts in religious law! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden." --- Luke 11:46 (NLT)
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Natter
Deleted line(s) 24,40 (click to see context) :
** Oh God, the hilarity!
--->'''Moses''': Are you ready, Pharaoh? ''[tosses robe off dramatically and holds out his staff]'' SNAKE! I CHOOSE YOU!! ''[dramatically throws it on the ground near Pharaoh's feet, complete with lightening effects]''\\
'''Crowd''': ''[at the staff turning into the snake]'' Ooooooh!\\
'''Ramses''': ''[smirks]'' Hmph! [[RefugeInAudacity You desert people are all the same]]. ''[stands up coolly]'' Prepare yourself as I demolish your miserable snake with my own snakes. ''[takes two smaller staffs]'' [[PunctuatedForEmphasis POWERS OF RA! GUIDE MY WAY!!!]] ''[throws them at Moses' snake with the same dramatic lightning effects]''\\
'''Crowd''': 8D ''[now amazed at the spectacle]'' Aaaaaah!\\
'''Moses''': ''[glares]'' [[FlatWhat Cheap parlor tricks.]]\\
'''MOSES' SNAKE USES 'DEVOUR' ON PHARAOH'S SNAKE (2)!!'''\\
''[Ramses' snakes die]''\\
'''IT'S SUPER-EFFECTIVE!!'''\\
'''Ramses''': [[OhCrap O___O]]\\
'''Moses''': [[RoaringRampageOfRevenge This is only the beginning, Pharaoh.]]\\
''[thousands of years later, Creator/SatoshiTajiri is inspired to make ''Pokemon'' after reading this excerpt from the Bible]''
** [[WebVideo/YuGiOhTheAbridgedSeries We all know the Ancient Egyptians played Yu-Gi-Oh]]. [[Literature/CodexAlera It’s the Romans who played]] Franchise/{{Pokemon}}.
--->'''Moses''': Wait, did you just summon two snakes in one turn?\\
'''Ramses''': Yeah, so?\\
'''Moses''': That's against the rules, isn't it?\\
'''Ramses''': [[ScrewTheRulesIMakeThem Screw the rules! I'm the Pharaoh!]]
--->'''Moses''': Are you ready, Pharaoh? ''[tosses robe off dramatically and holds out his staff]'' SNAKE! I CHOOSE YOU!! ''[dramatically throws it on the ground near Pharaoh's feet, complete with lightening effects]''\\
'''Crowd''': ''[at the staff turning into the snake]'' Ooooooh!\\
'''Ramses''': ''[smirks]'' Hmph! [[RefugeInAudacity You desert people are all the same]]. ''[stands up coolly]'' Prepare yourself as I demolish your miserable snake with my own snakes. ''[takes two smaller staffs]'' [[PunctuatedForEmphasis POWERS OF RA! GUIDE MY WAY!!!]] ''[throws them at Moses' snake with the same dramatic lightning effects]''\\
'''Crowd''': 8D ''[now amazed at the spectacle]'' Aaaaaah!\\
'''Moses''': ''[glares]'' [[FlatWhat Cheap parlor tricks.]]\\
'''MOSES' SNAKE USES 'DEVOUR' ON PHARAOH'S SNAKE (2)!!'''\\
''[Ramses' snakes die]''\\
'''IT'S SUPER-EFFECTIVE!!'''\\
'''Ramses''': [[OhCrap O___O]]\\
'''Moses''': [[RoaringRampageOfRevenge This is only the beginning, Pharaoh.]]\\
''[thousands of years later, Creator/SatoshiTajiri is inspired to make ''Pokemon'' after reading this excerpt from the Bible]''
** [[WebVideo/YuGiOhTheAbridgedSeries We all know the Ancient Egyptians played Yu-Gi-Oh]]. [[Literature/CodexAlera It’s the Romans who played]] Franchise/{{Pokemon}}.
--->'''Moses''': Wait, did you just summon two snakes in one turn?\\
'''Ramses''': Yeah, so?\\
'''Moses''': That's against the rules, isn't it?\\
'''Ramses''': [[ScrewTheRulesIMakeThem Screw the rules! I'm the Pharaoh!]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Book of Judges 6:12 has an angel appear to call Gideon "a mighty warrior and man of valour". Gideon, at this point, is hiding in a wine-press in the hope that the enemies invading Israel don't notice him. This is sometimes interpreted as a YouAreBetterThanYouThinkYouAre moment from the angel -- but the other, more hilarious, interpretation is that the angel is being [[SarcasmMode witheringly sarcastic]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Theological debate is the weirdest justifying natter, but natter nonetheless.
Changed line(s) 105,108 (click to see context) from:
* Matthew 21:18-19-- "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, 'May you never bear fruit again!' Immediately the tree withered."
** Just imagine Jesus yelling at a tree while the apostles all stand about awkwardly.
*** This isn't so much God hates figs, as it was an example of something which should have been acting according to nature (the tree should have been producing) instead being fruitless. Jesus is reminding the apostles of the consequences of disobedience.
*** No, not really. Since it wasn't the time of year for the tree to be producing, no one expected it to be bearing fruit. However, because the tree had leaves, a sign of producing fruit, Jesus cursed it for falsely claiming to bear fruit while doing nothing. The point is that genuine faith in Jesus produces good works, and since believers will be judged by others by their works (see James for more detail), giving off the appearance of faith without bearing any fruit will lead to being cursed by God. Not so much about disobedience, more about the consequences of bragging about faith while doing nothing good with it.
** Just imagine Jesus yelling at a tree while the apostles all stand about awkwardly.
*** This isn't so much God hates figs, as it was an example of something which should have been acting according to nature (the tree should have been producing) instead being fruitless. Jesus is reminding the apostles of the consequences of disobedience.
*** No, not really. Since it wasn't the time of year for the tree to be producing, no one expected it to be bearing fruit. However, because the tree had leaves, a sign of producing fruit, Jesus cursed it for falsely claiming to bear fruit while doing nothing. The point is that genuine faith in Jesus produces good works, and since believers will be judged by others by their works (see James for more detail), giving off the appearance of faith without bearing any fruit will lead to being cursed by God. Not so much about disobedience, more about the consequences of bragging about faith while doing nothing good with it.
to:
* Matthew 21:18-19-- "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, 'May you never bear fruit again!' Immediately the tree withered."
** Just" Theological meaning aside, just imagine Jesus yelling at a tree until it dies while the apostles all stand about awkwardly.
*** This isn't so much God hates figs, as it was an example of something which should have been acting according to nature (the tree should have been producing) instead being fruitless. Jesus is reminding the apostles of the consequences of disobedience.
*** No, not really. Since it wasn't the time of year for the tree to be producing, no one expected it to be bearing fruit. However, because the tree had leaves, a sign of producing fruit, Jesus cursed it for falsely claiming to bear fruit while doing nothing. The point is that genuine faith in Jesus produces good works, and since believers will be judged by others by their works (see James for more detail), giving off the appearance of faith without bearing any fruit will lead to being cursed by God. Not so much about disobedience, more about the consequences of bragging about faith while doing nothing good with it.awkwardly.
** Just
*** This isn't so much God hates figs, as it was an example of something which should have been acting according to nature (the tree should have been producing) instead being fruitless. Jesus is reminding the apostles of the consequences of disobedience.
*** No, not really. Since it wasn't the time of year for the tree to be producing, no one expected it to be bearing fruit. However, because the tree had leaves, a sign of producing fruit, Jesus cursed it for falsely claiming to bear fruit while doing nothing. The point is that genuine faith in Jesus produces good works, and since believers will be judged by others by their works (see James for more detail), giving off the appearance of faith without bearing any fruit will lead to being cursed by God. Not so much about disobedience, more about the consequences of bragging about faith while doing nothing good with it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* The Hebrew language as a whole, and ancient Aramaic in general, is very fond of wordplay. For just one example of many, albeit one of the most noticeable examples, every single name has a double meaning; Biblical names are actual words, prior to language evolution. Case in point, "Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man", "Abram" means "exalted father", and "Abraham" means "father of many nations".[[labelnote:*]]Yes, this means that Abram essentially went around introducing himself as "my dad's a great guy", before God changed his name and he had to go around introducing himself as "I'm the father of many nations" instead.[[/labelnote]] God had a habit of changing peoples names (see God naming Abram "Abraham", Jesus naming Simon "Peter", and giving ''each'' of His followers a brand new name in Revelation), and using wordplay in general. Which, if you think about it, means that God is the ''original'' PungeonMaster.
to:
* The Hebrew language as a whole, and ancient Aramaic in general, is very fond of wordplay. For just one example of many, albeit one of the most noticeable examples, [[MeaningfulName every single name name]] has [[PunnyName a double meaning; meaning]]; Biblical names are actual words, prior to language evolution.evolution eventually turning some of them into "just" homonyms. Case in point, "Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man", "Abram" means "exalted father", and "Abraham" means "father of many nations".[[labelnote:*]]Yes, this means that Abram essentially went around introducing himself as "my dad's a great guy", before God changed his name and he had to go around introducing himself as "I'm the father of many nations" instead.[[/labelnote]] God had a habit of changing peoples names (see God naming Abram "Abraham", Jesus naming Simon "Peter", and giving ''each'' of His followers a brand new name in Revelation), and using wordplay in general. Which, if you think about it, means that God is the ''original'' PungeonMaster.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* The Hebrew language as a whole, and ancient Aramaic in general, is very fond of wordplay. Every single name has a double meaning; Biblical names are actual words, prior to language evolution. Case in point, "Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man", "Abram" means "exalted father", and "Abraham" means "father of many nations".[[labelnote:*]]Yes, this means that Abram essentially went around introducing himself as "my dad's a great guy", before God changed his name and he had to go around introducing himself as "I'm the father of many nations" instead.[[/labelnote]] God had a habit of changing peoples names (see God naming Abram "Abraham", Jesus naming Simon "Peter", and giving ''each'' of His followers a brand new name in Revelation), and using wordplay in general. Which, if you think about it, means that God is the ''original'' PungeonMaster.
to:
* The Hebrew language as a whole, and ancient Aramaic in general, is very fond of wordplay. Every For just one example of many, albeit one of the most noticeable examples, every single name has a double meaning; Biblical names are actual words, prior to language evolution. Case in point, "Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man", "Abram" means "exalted father", and "Abraham" means "father of many nations".[[labelnote:*]]Yes, this means that Abram essentially went around introducing himself as "my dad's a great guy", before God changed his name and he had to go around introducing himself as "I'm the father of many nations" instead.[[/labelnote]] God had a habit of changing peoples names (see God naming Abram "Abraham", Jesus naming Simon "Peter", and giving ''each'' of His followers a brand new name in Revelation), and using wordplay in general. Which, if you think about it, means that God is the ''original'' PungeonMaster.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
to:
** On the subject of God changing peoples' names, most of the new names are ''completely'' unfitting. It's an example of [[https://biblehub.com/romans/4-17.htm God calling things that are not as though they are]] to build up peoples' faith so they're able to ''receive'' the new name, by making them to prophesy that thing over themself whenever they use their new name. But still, telling a centenarian to introduce himself as the father of ''many'' nations when he has no kids '''and''' both he and his wife are too old to have kids? Or telling [[HotBlooded Simon]] to introduce himself as "rock", being [[SarcasmMode the paragon of stability that he was]]? It's low-key kinda hilarious, right up until the name comes true.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
to:
* The Hebrew language as a whole, and ancient Aramaic in general, is very fond of wordplay. Every single name has a double meaning; Biblical names are actual words, prior to language evolution. Case in point, "Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man", "Abram" means "exalted father", and "Abraham" means "father of many nations".[[labelnote:*]]Yes, this means that Abram essentially went around introducing himself as "my dad's a great guy", before God changed his name and he had to go around introducing himself as "I'm the father of many nations" instead.[[/labelnote]] God had a habit of changing peoples names (see God naming Abram "Abraham", Jesus naming Simon "Peter", and giving ''each'' of His followers a brand new name in Revelation), and using wordplay in general. Which, if you think about it, means that God is the ''original'' PungeonMaster.
Added DiffLines:
* In Luke 11:37-54, a Pharisee invites Jesus over for supper, and Jesus takes the opportunity to lambast the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. One of the lawyers/legal experts/experts in the law points out that what He said was insulting them, too. And how does Jesus respond? [[https://biblehub.com/luke/11-46.htm He turns to the experts in the law and starts lambasting them, too]]. Or in other words, as one translation puts it...
---> “[[BluntYes Yes,” said Jesus]], “what sorrow also awaits you experts in religious law! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden." --- Luke 11:46 (NLT)
---> “[[BluntYes Yes,” said Jesus]], “what sorrow also awaits you experts in religious law! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden." --- Luke 11:46 (NLT)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 89 (click to see context) from:
** There is also the bizarre rule that a person with a skin disease is unclean, but if the disease spreads to cover his entire body completely, then the person is clean again.
to:
** There is also the bizarre rule that a person with a skin disease is unclean, but if the disease spreads to cover his entire body completely, then the person is clean again.[[labelnote:*]]This is probably supposed to be a purity law, with the intent that blotches of differently-coloured skin are what makes the person unclean; having skin that's purely a single colour is clean, regardless of colour. And it also seems to only apply if the condition isn't contagious, since spreadable diseases would still be unclean because of other laws. Still pretty funny even '''in''' context, though.[[/labelnote]]
** On the subject of the Law, a lot of the laws regard purity, and are symbolic of how God's people, the Jews, are supposed to be completely separate from the world, and ''not'' supposed to mingle with the world. (And by extension, are to keep away from the worship and gods of the surrounding nations, and not mix God and pagan beliefs.) ...But if you miss the symbolic meaning and only see the literal, then you find things like, say, [[https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-19.htm a ban]] on [[https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-11.htm blended fabrics]]. Better kiss that cotton-polyester shirt goodbye!
** On the subject of the Law, a lot of the laws regard purity, and are symbolic of how God's people, the Jews, are supposed to be completely separate from the world, and ''not'' supposed to mingle with the world. (And by extension, are to keep away from the worship and gods of the surrounding nations, and not mix God and pagan beliefs.) ...But if you miss the symbolic meaning and only see the literal, then you find things like, say, [[https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-19.htm a ban]] on [[https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-11.htm blended fabrics]]. Better kiss that cotton-polyester shirt goodbye!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 74 (click to see context) from:
* At the end of the Literature/BookOfJonah, the way God defends His decision to not lay waste to Nineveh is rather humourous: "Should I care not about Nineveh, which has thousands of people who do not yet know their right from their left, and also much cattle!"
to:
* At the end of the Literature/BookOfJonah, the way God defends His decision to not lay waste to Nineveh is rather humourous: humorous: "Should I care not about Nineveh, which has thousands of people who do not yet know their right from their left, and also much cattle!"cattle!?"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 76 (click to see context) from:
* Isaiah 29:12- [[CaptainObvious "If you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, 'Read this, please', they will answer, 'I don’t know how to read.'"]]. Let it never be said the Bible doesn't provide practical advice.
to:
* Isaiah 29:12- 29:12 -- [[CaptainObvious "If you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, 'Read this, please', they will answer, 'I don’t know how to read.'"]]. '"]] Let it never be said the Bible doesn't provide practical advice.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Isaiah 29:12- [[CaptainObvious "If you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, 'Read this, please', they will answer, 'I don’t know how to read.'"]]. Let it never be said the Bible doesn't provide practical advice.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Abimelech's response boils down to "Would you guys '''stop doing that!?'''" He then lets it be known that "anyone who harms this man or his '''wife''' will be put to death."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 108 (click to see context) from:
* Luke 7:29 specifies that all the people accepted John was a prophet...even the ''tax collectors''! It's even better in some translations, which write it as "all the people, [[MyFriendsAndZoidberg and the tax collectors]]..."
to:
* Luke 7:29 specifies that all the people accepted John was a prophet... even the ''tax collectors''! It's even better in some translations, which write it as "all the people, [[MyFriendsAndZoidberg and the tax collectors]]..."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 89 (click to see context) from:
* David cutting off a piece of Saul's robes as the latter was going to, ehm, ''empty his bowels'' might be a perfect lesson of mercy...until you remember one thing: caves have no ventilation. Meaning David is having to face the full stench of his would-be murderer's poo.
to:
* David cutting off a piece of Saul's robes as the latter was going to, ehm, ''empty his bowels'' might be a perfect lesson of mercy... until you remember one thing: caves have no ventilation. Meaning David is having to face the full stench of his would-be murderer's poo.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Luke 7:29 specifies that all the people accepted John was a prophet...even the ''tax collectors''! It's even better in some translations, which write it as "all the people, [[MyFriendsAndZoidberg and the tax collectors]]..."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* John's account of the Resurrection involves himself and Peter ''racing'' to the tomb where Jesus' body was held. John makes a point to note that he got there before Peter did.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 72 (click to see context) from:
* The Book of Jonah, particularly the fourth chapter.
to:
* The Book of Jonah, particularly the fourth chapter.chapter, where despite everything he's been through, and despite the fact that the Ninevites repented through a short, eight-word sermon, Jonah still mopes about how they should be destroyed. He is so petty about the whole ordeal, he wants God to just GetItOverWith, especially when God gives him a plant to sit under and wait for the destruction... only to send a worm to destroy the plant the next day.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 54 (click to see context) from:
* Deut. 25:7-10 tells of the funniest "divorce" ceremony ever. It involves the guy getting spat in the face. There's also one in there about how a woman who has grabbed a man's junk out of anger should have the hand cut off.
to:
* Deut. Deuteronomy 25:7-10 tells of the funniest "divorce" punitive ceremony ever. for a man who refuses to marry (and thereby support) his brother's widow. It involves the guy getting spat her taking off his shoe and spitting in the his face. There's also one [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halizah This is still performed]] in Orthodox Jewish communities (non-punitively, as marrying your brother's widow is generally discouraged); there are regulations addressing what qualifies as a shoe for ritual purposes.
* Deuteronomy also has one about how a woman who has grabbed a man's junk out of anger should have the hand cut off.
* Deuteronomy also has one about how a woman who has grabbed a man's junk out of anger should have the hand cut off.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Those laws also prohibit a man from marrying his wife's sister - presumably, so commentators have noted, just to avoid any more such nonsense.
