CommentsDisplaying Xyskalla's 10 most recent comments.

• Two Pro Hockey Coaches Nearly Came to Blows During Last Night’s Playoff Game

  May 22, 2012 at 5:46pm

  Reminds me of the incident I saw in the parking lot of a bar. Two men were fighting when a hockey game broke out.

• MTV Scraps Reality Show About Young People Losing Their Virginity

  May 22, 2012 at 4:55pm

  In reply to troymac20.

  I can see it now: “Sweet! If they’re going to help, I guess I could lose my virginity again.”

• Viral Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter’s Laptop With .45 Pistol After Finding Secret Facebook Post

  April 21, 2012 at 11:47am

  In reply to Sir_Templar.

  I LIKE this guy!

• Jamie Lee Curtis Calls on Obama Admin to Fight Addiction in Wake of Whitney Houston’s Death

  April 21, 2012 at 11:36am

  “Now a liberal celebrity is asking a liberal president who is addicted to spending spending other peoples’ money to fight the very scourge that liberals have brought upon themselves.”

  Fixed

• New Bible Translation Replaces ‘Christ,‘ ’Angel’ & ‘Apostle’

  April 21, 2012 at 4:47am

  In reply to proliance.

  @PettroFox
  Messiah is a transliteration of the Hebrew word “mashiach”. Mashiach was a very ordinary word. It was not used exclusively for the promised deliverer of Israel. It was used to refer to Levitical priests, King Saul was referred to as Yahweh’s Messiah, and King David was, too. Look it up in Strongs, it’s #4899, and you‘ll see how frequently it’s used. The word is used 39 times in the Old Testament, and the only two times that the NASB (the version I use) transliterates it as “Messiah” are in Daniel 9:25-26, where it is obviously referring Jesus. In the other 37 occurrences, the word is correctly translated “anointed” or “anointed one”.

  If God wanted to come up with a unique word that applied only to Jesus, He could have. But He didn’t. He used a common word (“mashiach” in Hebrew and “christos” in Greek), and most versions of the Bible aren’t even translating it when it refers to Jesus. They just transliterate it as if it were a name. But it’s not a name. It’s an ordinary word with an actual meaning, and that meaning gets obscured when it’s not translated. When they translate it one way 37 times, but they don’t translate it twice, those two times end up losing the significance of why God chose to use that specific word.

• ABC Shows Alleged Bloodied Image of Zimmerman’s Head on Night of Martin Shooting

  April 20, 2012 at 5:34pm

  In reply to HowardSternIsABigot.

  @progressiveslayer
  Didn’t Charles Manson want to start a race war? Is Charlie running the media?

• New Bible Translation Replaces ‘Christ,‘ ’Angel’ & ‘Apostle’

  April 20, 2012 at 12:03pm

  In reply to proliance.

  I just noticed that the end of my first post was cut off, even though it said that I had 7 characters remaining. This isn’t the first time this has happened. Sorry about that–I forgot that The Blaze had this problem.

  Anyway, the last sentence in my first post should have read “It’s nice to be able to read it in a way closer to the way that the original audience would have understood it.”

• New Bible Translation Replaces ‘Christ,‘ ’Angel’ & ‘Apostle’

  April 20, 2012 at 11:54am

  In reply to proliance.

  Another way to look at it would be if John 1:1 was traditionally translated “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” And then complaining when someone decided to actually translate Logos instead of transliterating it, so that it read “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

• New Bible Translation Replaces ‘Christ,‘ ’Angel’ & ‘Apostle’

  April 20, 2012 at 11:47am

  In reply to proliance.

  Why is this controversial? “Christ” isn’t a translation. “Christ” is just a transliteration of the Greek word “Christos”. (A transliteration isn’t a translation. Instead, you just substitute the English letters in place of the Greek, so you know how to pronounce it, but the actual meaning of the word doesn’t come through.) Christos is actually a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah (another English transliteration), but when it’s actually translated, it means “anointed one”. The original audience would have read it as “Jesus the anointed one,” because that’s what “Christ” means.

  Same thing with “angel”. Angel is another transliteration, but when it’s actually translated, it merely means “messenger”. The same word is used for both heavenly spiritual beings and for human messengers. It‘s only by context that the translators decide if it’s referring to spirits or humans. If they think it’s referring to spirits, they transliterate it “angel”, and if they think it’s referring to a human, they translate it “messenger”. Personally I prefer they just translate it the same way every time so I could decide for myself if it’s referring to spirits or humans (see Revelation 2-3 where most translations use the word “angel” but it’s probably referring to humans).

  I don’t have enough characters remaining to go into “apostle” (another transliteration), but you get the idea. It’s nice to be able to read it in a way closer to the way that the or

• Exclusive: Atheist Movement‘s ’George Soros‘ Says Bible Has ’Moral’ & ‘Factual’ Flaws; Touts His Vision for Secularism

  April 18, 2012 at 3:17pm

  In reply to RodT.

  The issue of being good without God isn’t just a question of “why bother making the effort to be good?” It involves a philosophical issue about the nature of what is good.

  Without God, there isn’t even a standard of good and evil. Instead, you only have individual preferences and society’s preferences (which are often at odds with each other) concerning what is pleasant, what is harmful, what is orderly, what causes dissension, etc. But what you like isn’t necessarily going to be what other people like. You might think that it’s obvious that something like murder or rape is evil, but not everyone agrees with that standard. Murder is harmful, true, but that doesn‘t mean it’s evil, and many societies throughout history did not equate the two.

  People tend to prefer peace and stability over disorder and violence, but without God there is nothing to say that one is good and the other is evil, there is just “this is what we prefer, so this is how we will live, this is how we hope others will treat us, and we will enact laws to protect our lifestyle.” So you can’t be good (or evil) without God because there is no such thing as good or evil without an objective moral standard.