Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 3:09 AM
176 online now:
ICANT, Pressie, Tangle (3 members, 173 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,733 Year: 18,556/29,783 Month: 501/2,043 Week: 53/386 Day: 3/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Evangelical Support Group
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 166 of 244 (399409)
05-05-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by sidelined
05-04-2007 10:36 PM


Re: Testosterone—the evil molecule
HC:

Show me another molecule that accounts for so much trouble.

sidelined responds:

Easy. Estrogen. Think on it.


I thought about it. Don't agree. Estrogen comes with such soft, moist, receptive possibilities, like a banana split, while testosterone comes with a bloodshot weapon armed for stiff penetration, like a stinkhorn in the shrubbery. It's the classic struggle between good and evil, isn't it? Why do good girls go out with bad boys?

...hold on, maybe I agree with you after all.

—HM

Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Content Hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by sidelined, posted 05-04-2007 10:36 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nator, posted 05-06-2007 10:37 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5603
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 167 of 244 (399420)
05-05-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Equinox
05-03-2007 2:17 PM


Re: KJV only Christians
OK, then what you are saying your experience proves makes sense. Please do not extend it, as I’ve so often seen done, to erase doubt that

What started this whole argument was that Phat had mentioned something about a personal experience with God. I agreed, having similar moments with Him, that this is what turned me towards Him. I once was very resistant to it and very skeptical of the whole thing. I'm merely speaking from personal experience. Others have basically said that my experience means nothing-- that I probably had a moment of delusion, or what have you.

How annoying is it for somebody to critique a personal experience of someone else?

People of all faiths use non-doctrinal encounters with God to affirm their whole system of belief. Even I believe in God, depending on how you define that term.

I'm not going to criticize or minimize anyone's experience with God. I believe that God comes to people of other faiths to redirect them. I believe people who have no doctrinal understanding of God, have moments with Him to goad us towards Him.

The total amount of text removed is claimed by KJV onlyist Christians to be greater than the entire texts of I and II peter put together, and futher say that the following major Christian doctrines are attacked

I try not to get in these inter-denominational refutations and quibbles because it causes dissension. And often times they are arguing over silly matters that cause an unnecessary division amongst believers.

1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked often in the modern versions (see Gn 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tm 3:16, Hb 1:8)

Which fundy atheist website did you go to gather these questions? How do any of these verses "attack" the Deity of Christ? If anything, they confirm them. This is the NIV translation.

"Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together." -Genesis 22:8 NIV

Have you ever heard the terminology that Jesus is the Lamb of God? That has its origins in this passage, where Jesus because the ultimate atoning sacrificial lambs for all sins. How does that bring his deity into question.

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me One who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." -Micah 5:2 NIV

Please explain to me how this passage questions the deity of Jesus? This is a messianic verse prophesying that the Lamb of God, the messiah, will come from the tribe of Judah. It goes on to describe the messiah in eternal terms, providing doctrinal reasons why the messiah is more than just a man.

"Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." -1st Timothy 3:16 NIV

Again, this verse affirms the deity of Christ, not brings it into disrepute.

"But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom." -Hebrews 1:8

Same thing.

Anyway, that's all that I'm at liberty to look up since its evident that, where ever you got your information from, its incorrect.

Do we agree that the changes amount to much more than just forms of words such as hast/have?

No, we don't agree.

Whether or not the difference affect doctrine is something that non-KJV onlyists fall back on, but simply looking at the statement shows that it makes no sense. Many Christians start out with their doctrine, and then read the bible such as to make the Bible fit their doctrine. So of course changes won’t effect doctrine, since it’s already decided.

The translations are close. What you are suggesting is that there is some grand conspiracy propagated by, who, we'll never know, to make Jesus out to be something He isn't. But lets take 10 random passages and see if there is a great disparity between them.

1. "And the way of peace have they not known" -Romans 3:17 KJV

"and the way of peace they do not know." -Romans 3:17 NIV

2. "And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock." -Exodus 2:19 KJV

"They answered, "An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock." -Genesis 2:19 NIV

3. "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind." -Revelation 6:13 KJV

"and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind." -Revelation 6:13 NIV

4. "But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions." -Obadiah 1:17 KJV

"But on Mount Zion will be deliverance; it will be holy, and the house of Jacob will possess its inheritance" -Obadiah 1:17 NIV

5. "But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." -Proverbs 6:31 KJV

"Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house." -Proverbs 6:31 NIV

6. "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time" -1st Peter 5:6 KJV

"Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time." -1st Peter 5:6 NIV

7. "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV

"A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his father's bed." -Deuteronomy 22:30 NIV

8. "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner" -Luke 18:13 KJV

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner." -Luke 18:13 NIV

9. "The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them? -Jeremiah 8:9 KJV

"The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have? -Jeremiah 8:9 NIV

10. "These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots" -Jude 1:12 KJV

"These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead." -Jude 1:12 NIV

That was done completely at random. Do you see any great disparity that would cause you to question the validity of the translation itself? I see nothing so great that it cannot be reconciled by the minor variations in the English language.

For instance, if I found a “Bible” that listed only the Nicene creed and a couple other sentences, and claimed it was a new, correct version of the bible, one could claim that this new “version”, that is less than a page long, is not a significant difference, since it doesn’t change any doctrine.

The idea is to be as close to the original manuscripts as possible. That means to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls, Coptic text, Armenian text, Gothic text, Ethiopic text, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, etc. You have to remember that transcribing was considered a professional career in antiquity. Obviously, no printing presses or photocopy machines existed, so it was the scribe who was trained to copy documents. And in an age where illiteracy was prevalent, the scribe was considered a very learned individual. The task for the scribe was usually an undertaking assigned to a devout Jew. They didn't just pick random people off of the street to perform this job. Its also important to remember that the Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and, therefore, were extremely careful in transposing documents. They did not hastily write things down. This was an arduous and meticulous task, exhibiting great detail and reproof.

Secondly, and more importantly – saying that the versions are the same is again raising the “pretty good god” issue. In other words, are you saying that the versions are the same because God is in control of the process of Bible transcription?

I'm saying that they are in remarkable agreement. I believe that it is entirely possible to have textual errors, and I believe it is entirely possible that God could preserve His Word. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Tenach dates from 900 AD. During the early part of the tenth century there was a group of Jews known as the ‘Massoretes.’ They were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy any given book of the Tenach, and when they completed it, they would count the total number of letters. Then they would find the middle of the book by extrapolate backwards using the number/letter system. If even one ‘jot’ (equivalent to an apostrophe) or ‘tittle’ (equivalent to the dotting of an ‘i’ or crossing of a ‘t’) were missing, they would take the document and throw it away. If the book were not an exact replica, they would start over. Not to mention that at least two scribes wrote together for added assurance. This, I believe, is why Jesus mentions the accuracy. He's essentially saying, "if its in there, you can take it to the bank."

All the present copies of the Hebrew text are in remarkable agreement. Moreover, comparisons of the Massoretic text to the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate revealed the careful transposing. Very little deviation has ever been found-- far less than you assert. As if the Massoretic text wasn’t trustworthy enough, the most remarkable discovery came by the most unlikely of discoverers... A young, Bedouin shepherd.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the most outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The authenticity of the DSS at this point is beyond reproach. In fact, with the exception of the book of Ruth, every book of the Tenach was discovered.

Now, where the DSS ties into the Massoretic text is shown in the comparing of the two. The Essenes and Masorites were extremely close to one another in accuracy. Only 17 letters were found different by contrast. You might think that is a lot, but when I say they were different, it’s like the difference between ‘honor’ and ‘honour.’ They produced no change to the meaning of the text whatsoever, just like the NIV produces no real change to the textual meaning of the KJV. Out of it all, only one word was truly questionable, but even it did not change the effect of the meaning.

I was making an example of what a simple encounter with God doesn’t prove.

My encounter with God proves nothing to you. I'm simply saying that my encounter with God proved it to me.

I was asking how you keep them from being changed over time in your mind, as happens normally with many human memories. This is important because if your ideas about what God said change in the wrong way, you could end up in Hell for all eternity.

Look, you are entitled to come up with whatever excuses you want or assign for me whatever deficiencies you want me to have. You're entitled to that skepticism. But I know what happened to me. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I was having a conversation with someone. Somewhere along the line, you felt the need to interject. You have no way of knowing what experience(s) I've had either way. Its not a provable matter in either direction. Its something for me to know on a personal level.

I have no evidence of the elephants or flugersnorts. However, there is tons of evidence that people misremember things. There have been plenty of studies showing that people regularly fabricate memories, change their meanings, change the words they heard people say, and on and on.

Then maybe God has come to you in a very personal way. And you have tried to reason with yourself that it must be a concoction of your mind. And in that way, you misremember your experience.

From my own life, my father met with a boyhood friend, and described how he remembered the time...

That's a great story. It doesn't apply to me. But you're still welcome to your skepticism.

Ah, but I was sure in the first place. That’s the whole point, that memories we are “sure” of could still be misremembered, and without outside evidence, we have no way of knowing.

Then you wouldn't know that you were misremembering. In which case, it brings you full circle.

Oh, and do we have a similar picture of Jesus’s statement about the OT (did you see post 126)?

I'm not sure if I've read it yet. I'll make a point to do so, though.


"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Equinox, posted 05-03-2007 2:17 PM Equinox has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by iceage, posted 05-07-2007 12:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 176 by Equinox, posted 05-08-2007 3:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 168 of 244 (399509)
05-06-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
05-04-2007 11:46 AM


A Childs Explanation of God
Greg Laurie is one of the pastors I listen to online. They are all found at OnePlace Anyway, Greg tells an anecdote of a little girl who is drawing a picture of God.
Her Mother says to her, "But honey...nobody knows what God looks like!"
The little girl replied adamantly, "Well they will when I'm done!"

Its funny but so true. (and thanks to everyone for helping me with my logic)
I am clarifying my belief to read: I am unafraid to question Gods existence but I shall never doubt it!

I can still say with defiance that I am getting to know God!

  • I believe that His Spirit lives in me! I believe that He desires relationship with every individual on earth, but that this relationship takes many forms.
  • I believe that by reading a Bible, I can gain much insight into mans description of interactions with God as we understand Him.
    This insight is not found only in the Bible, but is confirmed internally by the Holy Spirit.

    Jars question still remains in my head: How do I (or we) know that it is God?

    I guess thats why we keep talking about this stuff!

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TOPIC FOCUS<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    From this point, I want anyone who comments in this topic to believe in God as they understand Him to be. Anyone who comments is welcome to do so, but I want this topic to live up to its name. Evangelical Support Group.

    Websters writes:

    evangelicaladj [LL evangelium gospel, fr. Gk evangelion, fr. eu- good + angelos messenger] 1 : of or relating to the Christian gospel esp. as presented in the four Gospels 2 : of or relating to certain Protestant churches emphasizing the authority of Scripture and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual 3 : zealous <~ fervor> Evangelical n Evangelicalism n evangelically adv

    Keep in mind that an atheist could be an evangelical as described within the context of definition # 3 above!

    Just for everyone's information, however, this is going to be my pet topic here at EvC, and don't be surprised if you see a version 2 once this one hits 300 posts!

    Oh...and one more thing: In my Post 158 where I mentioned Dr.B, I am changing my approach.

    Equinox writes:

    I mean, why not just say what you think,instead of practicing parroting protestant preachers points?

    On one hand, I appreciate your honesty in telling us that that is what you'll be doing (instead of doing it secretly), but I guess I don't get why the lens of someone else is desired.

    Maybe the exercise of practicing this may help convince you of the arguments you want to be convinced of?

    The reason, Equinox, is that I am still trying to frame and define what it is that I think and believe, and it often helps to quote sources that say what I think I wanted to say better than I can, at the time, say it. (Does that make any sense? )

    Edited by Phat, : added features!

    Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

    Edited by Phat, : clarification of belief statement, upon further reflection

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 152 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 11:46 AM nator has not yet responded

      
  • nator
    Member (Idle past 144 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 169 of 244 (399598)
    05-06-2007 10:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 166 by Fosdick
    05-05-2007 11:51 AM


    Re: Testosterone—the evil molecule
    quote:
    Estrogen comes with such soft, moist, receptive possibilities, like a banana split, while testosterone comes with a bloodshot weapon armed for stiff penetration, like a stinkhorn in the shrubbery. It's the classic struggle between good and evil, isn't it? Why do good girls go out with bad boys?

    OK, eww.

    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : CONTENT HIDDEN.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 166 by Fosdick, posted 05-05-2007 11:51 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 170 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-06-2007 11:19 PM nator has not yet responded

        
    Adminnemooseus
    Director
    Posts: 3871
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 170 of 244 (399612)
    05-06-2007 11:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 169 by nator
    05-06-2007 10:37 PM


    Crappy subtheme (or maybe just crap)
    I had problems with Brennakimi about this sort of stuff. Stop it.

    Also to all - Please respect Phat's request, found a couple of messages back.

    No replies in this message. If you must reply, go to the "General..." topic, link below.

    Adminnemooseus

    Rather late "added by edit":

    This ended up coming of as being aimed specifically at Nator. She was actually only putting the latest message to a subthread that, it sure seems, had nothing to do with the topic theme.

    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


    New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
    General discussion of moderation procedures
    Thread Reopen Requests
    Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    Other useful links:

    Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

    Admin writes:

    It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

    There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

    Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 169 by nator, posted 05-06-2007 10:37 PM nator has not yet responded

        
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3889 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 171 of 244 (399695)
    05-07-2007 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 167 by Hyroglyphx
    05-05-2007 1:25 PM


    Varieties of Religious Experience
    NJ writes:

    How annoying is it for somebody to critique a personal experience of someone else?

    OK....

    NJ writes:

    I'm not going to criticize or minimize anyone's experience with God. I believe that God comes to people of other faiths to redirect them. I believe people who have no doctrinal understanding of God, have moments with Him to goad us towards Him.

    Did you not just do, what you stated as annoying???

    Your experience is uniquely genuine and removes all doubt! However, people of other faiths that have religious experiences are just experiencing an exhortation or redirection towards your one true view of God. You just minimized, maybe even trivialized, other peoples religious experiences.

    Do you have any evidence to back this ostentatious claim? Without some form of evidence your position is extremely arrogant and/or ignorant of the varieties (or vagaries) of religious experience!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 167 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-05-2007 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 172 by Phat, posted 05-07-2007 1:31 PM iceage has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11563
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 172 of 244 (399700)
    05-07-2007 1:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 171 by iceage
    05-07-2007 12:46 PM


    Re: Varieties of Religious Experience
    Iceage, I think that nemesis is asserting the Christian world view as exclusive rather than inclusive, but I don't think he consciously chooses to be arrogant.

    Some critics maintain that the chief turnoff in organized Christian conservatism is the exclusivity. Others maintain that Christ is exclusive. He reaches out to us inclusively yet we then accept Him exclusively. Get it?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 171 by iceage, posted 05-07-2007 12:46 PM iceage has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11563
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 173 of 244 (399701)
    05-07-2007 1:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 165 by iceage
    05-05-2007 1:15 AM


    exclusivity versus inclusivity
    iceage writes:

    f you believe your religious experience confirms the validity of your Christian view (and removes all doubt) and if your religion theology is exclusive as your good book clearly says, then either:

  • You have to discount the religious experiences of other people that have a different religious view (that even maybe anti-Christian), as counterfeit.

    or

  • Conventional Christian theology is wrong (or popularly interpreted wrong).
  • It is a bit like voting. can all the candidates be right?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 165 by iceage, posted 05-05-2007 1:15 AM iceage has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 174 by nator, posted 05-07-2007 2:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 175 by iceage, posted 05-07-2007 3:11 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 144 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 174 of 244 (399711)
    05-07-2007 2:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 173 by Phat
    05-07-2007 1:34 PM


    Re: exclusivity versus inclusivity
    quote:
    It is a bit like voting. can all the candidates be right?

    Yes.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 173 by Phat, posted 05-07-2007 1:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

        
    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3889 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 175 of 244 (399719)
    05-07-2007 3:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 173 by Phat
    05-07-2007 1:34 PM


    Re: exclusivity versus inclusivity
    Phat writes:

    It is a bit like voting. can all the candidates be right?

    First you have to answer the question if *any* are right!

    Within the realm of religious doctrine is is very doubtful that any are correct. So maybe you are just voting the least wrong.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 173 by Phat, posted 05-07-2007 1:34 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Equinox
    Member (Idle past 3116 days)
    Posts: 329
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 08-18-2006


    Message 176 of 244 (399871)
    05-08-2007 3:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 167 by Hyroglyphx
    05-05-2007 1:25 PM


    Re: KJV only Christians
    Note, section below, between the ***, has been moved over to a thread on this topic. I only left it here for reference.

    **********************************************************

    ________________________________________


    OK, then what you are saying your experience proves makes sense. Please do not extend it, as I’ve so often seen done, to erase doubt that

    I'm merely speaking from personal experience. Others have basically said that my experience means nothing-- that I probably had a moment of delusion, or what have you.
    How annoying is it for somebody to critique a personal experience of someone else?

    I’m not saying you were delusional – I too have had transcendent experiences, as have millions of others. I’m merely pointing out that your transcendent experience is worthwhile in proving to you that there is a God, but not useful in proving to you that the KJV Bible is inerrant, unless that’s what God said to you. Your experience is certainly not proof in proving much outside yourself anyway. I so often see people bring up a divine experience just of “god”, and then extend it to say it proves their religion over that of others. Do we agree that there is a difference there?

    People of all faiths use non-doctrinal encounters with God to affirm their whole system of belief. Even I believe in God, depending on how you define that term.

    I'm not going to criticize or minimize anyone's experience with God. I believe that God comes to people of other faiths to redirect them. I believe people who have no doctrinal understanding of God, have moments with Him to goad us towards Him.

    I’m not minimizing anyone’s experience, and I’m not minimizing God. OK, so you are saying that these millions of people have millions of experiences that strengthen their non-Christian faiths, and this is all because the Christian God is trying to get them to become Christian? That’s a lot worse than saying that God is just “pretty good” - it’s saying that God is incompetent. Not to mention how much you are denigrating other’s belief systems.

    I was asking how you keep them from being changed over time in your mind, as happens normally with many human memories. This is important because if your ideas about what God said change in the wrong way, you could end up in Hell for all eternity.

    Look, you are entitled to come up with whatever excuses you want or assign for me whatever deficiencies you want me to have.

    I’m not blaming you for any deficiencies. You are human, just as I. I was pointing out that you are attributing super-human memory to yourself. Everyone (including myself), as long as they are human, will misremember things.

    *******************************************************

    Now, for the KJV part:

    1. The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked often in the modern versions (see Gn 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tm 3:16, Hb 1:8)


    Which fundy atheist website did you go to gather these questions? How do any of these verses "attack" the Deity of Christ? If anything, they confirm them. This is the NIV translation.
    Please explain to me how this passage questions the deity of Jesus?

    OK, I’ll do that. Here are two of them:

    "Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together." -Genesis 22:8 NIV
    Have you ever heard the terminology that Jesus is the Lamb of God? That has its origins in this passage, where Jesus because the ultimate atoning sacrificial lambs for all sins. How does that bring his deity into question.

    The KJV has:


    And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself, a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. KJV

    In the NIV, God is providing an offering. He could be providing a plain old lamb, without any reference to Jesus. A lamb is just a plain old lamb. Now compare that with the KJV. In the KJV, God is providing himself as the lamb. Thus, in the KJV, Jesus is the lamb of God without question.

    Next one:
    The NIV has:


    "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." -1st Timothy 3:16 NIV

    So WHO appeared in the flesh? The preceding verses don’t make that clear, so whoever that was, even if it were Jesus, could have been just a person, a prophet, or whatever (after all, the Bible says that Enoch and Elijah were taken up in glory, and they were just people. Now, compare with the KJV:


    And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. KJV

    This time, WHO in the flesh, etc? God. There is no question as to whether or not Jesus was God, and not just a person.

    The others are like this. Minor changes, but they can change the meaning of the text.

    Which fundy atheist website did you go to gather these questions?
    Anyway, that's all that I'm at liberty to look up since its evident that, where ever you got your information from, its incorrect.

    This is from the Christians who see only the KJV as inspired. You don’t have to ask which website, I provided one of them (the wiki page) in my earlier post – did you bother to check the links I provided? Anyway, I’m sure you’ve come across KJV only type Christians, but since you are calling them “fundy atheists”, I’ll provide a couple more links. I don’t think anyone would say that chick tracts are done by atheists.

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm


    Do we agree that the changes amount to much more than just forms of words such as hast/have?


    No, we don't agree.

    NJ, I gave the example from John 5 where around 3 dozen continuous words were removed – more than an entire verse – and there are plenty of other places like that. Many verses are deleted wholesale. Dozens of examples are listed here http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/niv-verses%20missing.htm. Now, you and I may disagree as to which (if any) have the “correct” bible, but I don’t understand how you can say that the KJV doesn’t differ by more than the forms of words. If I were a Christian, would you still deny a difference?

    Whether or not the difference affect doctrine is something that non-KJV onlyists fall back on, but simply looking at the statement shows that it makes no sense. Many Christians start out with their doctrine, and then read the bible such as to make the Bible fit their doctrine. So of course changes won’t effect doctrine, since it’s already decided.

    What you are suggesting is that there is some grand conspiracy propagated by, who, we'll never know, to make Jesus out to be something He isn't.

    No, I’m not. Human groups don’t work that way. Instead, ideas become popular (or supported by powerful institutions), and then people independently support those idea. No vast right ring conspiracy is required. Do you think all of the hundreds of millions of people who oppose President Bush are in a massive secret conspiracy? I don’t either.

    The translations are close. But lets take 10 random passages and see if there is a great disparity between them.
    1-10
    That was done completely at random. Do you see any great disparity that would cause you to question the validity of the translation itself? I see nothing so great that it cannot be reconciled by the minor variations in the English language.

    Well, duh…… If you take a few passages out of the 700,000 words of the Bible, of course there is a good chance they’ll match. I hope you don’t consider something OK in other areas of your life after checking less than 1% of it. Why did you ignore the section of John I posted? In that section, the NIV had completely deleted three dozen words? There are plenty of others, like Acts 8:37, etc.

    You know about Marcion, right? He took the G of Luke, cut out anything that he didn’t like (any reference to the OT or Jewish prophets), and published this as the G of Luke. Now, I just opened Luke to 10 random places, and none of them were places that Marcion had cut out. Does that mean that Marcion’s gospel of Luke is fine? Hey, I just asked 10 people here if any of them had cancer – none do, so cancer must not exist! Wow, I should get a Nobel prize for curing cancer! You say that’s silly? You’re right, that’s exactly what it is.

    For instance, if I found a “Bible” that listed only the Nicene creed and a couple other sentences, and claimed it was a new, correct version of the bible, one could claim that this new “version”, that is less than a page long, is not a significant difference, since it doesn’t change any doctrine.

    The idea is to be as close to the original manuscripts as possible. That means to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls, Coptic text, Armenian text, Gothic text, Ethiopian text, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, etc. You have to remember that transcribing was considered a professional career in antiquity. Obviously, no printing presses or photocopy machines existed, so it was the scribe who was trained to copy documents. And in an age where illiteracy was prevalent, the scribe was considered a very learned individual. The task for the scribe was usually an undertaking assigned to a devout Jew. They didn't just pick random people off of the street to perform this job. Its also important to remember that the Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and, therefore, were extremely careful in transposing documents. They did not hastily write things down. This was an arduous and meticulous task, exhibiting great detail and reproof.

    Yes, that’s true for the OT, but for centuries (Before there were monks in monestaries), the NT was indeed transcribed by people off the street. It’s important to realize this difference between the OT and the NT. Even the copying of the OT was far from perfect, though much better than the NT. We have tons of examples were scribes removed or added text, both in our manuscripts the NT and OT.


    Secondly, and more importantly – saying that the versions are the same is again raising the “pretty good god” issue. In other words, are you saying that the versions are the same because God is in control of the process of Bible transcription?

    I'm saying that they are in remarkable agreement. I believe that it is entirely possible to have textual errors, and I believe it is entirely possible that God could preserve His Word. ……..rs... A young, Bedouin shepherd.
    The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the most outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The authenticity of the DSS at this point is beyond reproach. In fact, with the exception of the book of Ruth, every book of the Tenach was discovered.
    Now, where the DSS ties into the Massoretic text is shown in the comparing of the two. The Essenes and Masorites were extremely close to one another in accuracy. Only 17 letters were found different by contrast. You might think that is a lot, but when I say they were different, it’s like the difference between ‘honor’ and ‘honour.’ They produced no change to the meaning of the text whatsoever, just like the NIV produces no real change to the textual meaning of the KJV. Out of it all, only one word was truly questionable, but even it did not change the effect of the meaning.

    Did you cut and paste that from an apologetics website? It’s just plain incorrect. I have the DSS right here, and looked up some things myself. Often the apologetics websites focus on the Isaiah scroll, since it is most similar to the Masoretic text. However, even the single book of Isaiah has literally hundreds of differences (not just 17), and many other books have much more. (on another note, the DSS has the entire book of Ruth, it’s missing Esther, probably because many Jews didn’t consider it part of the Bible.)
    One example of the differences is in the book of psalms. The DSS is different in again, hundreds of places. Psalms up through 90 are mostly the same, except for the many errors. Psalms 90-150 are significantly different in three ways. First, there are the errors we discussed (missing or added letters, words, sentences) that appear to be accidents. Second, there are intentional changes in content, where the Psalm is changed. Third, they are rearranged. Oh, and there are 9 new psalms that are added wholesale. Other books also have significant changes, including entire sentences. Please, find out for yourself, you’ll be able to talk without making Christians look naïve. If you’d like the DSS books of the OT, here they are (get the top two books on this page) :

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-4714678-3826545?
    url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dead+sea%2C+abegg

    All the best-

    -Equinox

    P.s 'looks like I should move the god experience part to the other thread. I have to go now, hopefully I can do that within a few days...

    Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed text (I hope)

    Edited by Equinox, : indicated section that now belongs in another thread


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 167 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-05-2007 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-08-2007 9:47 PM Equinox has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11563
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 177 of 244 (399927)
    05-08-2007 9:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 176 by Equinox
    05-08-2007 3:25 PM


    Re: KJV only Christians
    KJV writes:

    14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

    15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

    16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

    17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

    18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

    19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

    20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

    21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

    22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

    23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

    24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

    25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

    Now for the newer Message translation:

    The Message writes:

    I can anticipate the response that is coming: "I know that all God's commands are spiritual, but I'm not. Isn't this also your experience?" Yes. I'm full of myself—after all, I've spent a long time in sin's prison. What I don't understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise. So if I can't be trusted to figure out what is best for myself and then do it, it becomes obvious that God's command is necessary.

    But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can't keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it. I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time.

    It happens so regularly that it's predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. I truly delight in God's commands, but it's pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge.

    I've tried everything and nothing helps. I'm at the end of my rope. Is there no one who can do anything for me? Isn't that the real question?

    The answer, thank God, is that Jesus Christ can and does. He acted to set things right in this life of contradictions where I want to serve God with all my heart and mind, but am pulled by the influence of sin to do something totally different.

    Is there any difference in the meaning?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 176 by Equinox, posted 05-08-2007 3:25 PM Equinox has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 178 by Equinox, posted 05-09-2007 1:02 PM Phat has responded

      
    Equinox
    Member (Idle past 3116 days)
    Posts: 329
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 08-18-2006


    Message 178 of 244 (399978)
    05-09-2007 1:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 177 by Phat
    05-08-2007 9:47 PM


    Re: KJV only Christians
    Phat, I’m confused. First of all, I’m not sure if you are arguing that the sections you posted are perfectly preserved as the same, or that they are not perfectly preserved as the same. If the latter, then it seems like the moving goal posts again, where at first NJ says there are no differences except for single words like “Hast” instead of “Have”, which then changes to “different translations of phrases”, and new goalposts in your post, to “having a similar general meaning”, and in NJ’s post to “no changes in doctrine if interpreted correctly”, which as I pointed out, is a meaningless goalpost.

    Are you saying that a perfect God has ensured the perfect agreement of the paragraphs you posted, or are you saying that they are clearly different? They do have a similar general meaning in many places, but I for one sometimes had a hard time lining them up word for word (especially since the message version is a third longer than the KJV version).

    However, regardless of that, even if they were very similar (and NJ did a good job of providing some that were much more similar than the one you provided from the message version), would that not be pointless anyway? As I pointed out in my last post, that’s a tiny fraction of the Bible, and to show that this place is the same says nothing about all of it – remember that it only takes a change in a couple words or even letters to significantly change the meaning of any text. After all, even in a document that has been extensively changed to say something completely different, sections of even many consecutive, identical words could no doubt be found.

    Have a fun day-

    -Equinox

    P.S. I’m not sure which part you corrected in the last post, but thanks, you probably helped.

    Edited by Equinox, : refined length number


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-08-2007 9:47 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 179 by Phat, posted 05-11-2007 2:09 PM Equinox has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11563
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 179 of 244 (400240)
    05-11-2007 2:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 178 by Equinox
    05-09-2007 1:02 PM


    Doth thou understandeth?
    Hi, Equinox! :) This link provides some insight into differing Biblical translations. I am of the personal opinion that they lead a reader to the same conclusion if the reader is interested in grasping the overall concept.

    My question to you was whether the above two passages said basically the same thing or not.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 178 by Equinox, posted 05-09-2007 1:02 PM Equinox has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 180 by Equinox, posted 05-17-2007 1:53 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Equinox
    Member (Idle past 3116 days)
    Posts: 329
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 08-18-2006


    Message 180 of 244 (400938)
    05-17-2007 1:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 179 by Phat
    05-11-2007 2:09 PM


    Re: Doth thou understandeth?
    Phat wrote:
    I am of the personal opinion that they lead a reader to the same conclusion if the reader is interested in grasping the overall concept.

    You only come the same conclusion reading the Bible only if you’ve already decided what that conclusion is (yes, I did read the link). Even without looking at the Bible, that fact is obvious based on the actions of millions of Christians. There are thousands of Christian denominations, many using the same bible as other groups that believe extremely different things. It became obvious to me long ago (and is probably already obvious to you), that a liberal Hindu or Muslim is much closer in belief to a liberal Christian than the liberal Christian is to a fundamentalist Christian. This is true on almost every count – ask who Jesus is, what God is like, the origin of the earth or life, how to treat homosexuals, how to attain salvation, how the world will end, and on and on. That’s true even thought they aren’t even using the same text (a Bible is not a Qu’ran).

    So the fact that two conservative Christians (or more) can come to the same conclusion based on two significantly different bibles (say, the message and the KJV) means nothing. It doesn’t matter if the reader wants to grasp the overall concept – anyone reading something wants to do that, or they wouldn’t bother reading it. What matters is which general concept they want to grasp.

    My question to you was whether the above two passages said basically the same thing or not.

    They are clearly different on many points. The message version contains ideas and concepts that are simply not in the KJV – they were added. The KJV passage never mentions anything about

    “anticipate a response”, nor

    being conceited (“full of oneself”)

    or that Jesus “acted to set things right in this life”

    and many other things. The message version has simply added new ideas so that it fits with the modern expectations. If that modern expectation is what you are expecting, then it reads fine, but that’s not what the original manuscript said.

    This all shows a profoundly low expectation of what we pretend to think is an all-perfect God.

    We read stuff. That’s what books are for. We read all kinds of books – a sci-fi book here, a romance novel, a science textbook there, etc, in our daily lives using the hours as we wish. It struck me that if someone told me I could read a book not by Dan Brown, or Isaac Asimov, or Einstein, but by the actual creator of the entire universe – THE one true perfect God who created galaxies, planets, suns, elephants, T. Rexes, viruses, quarks, redwoods, Niagara falls, Olympus Mons, Europa, Hale-Bopp, sex, myself, supernovas, languages, gamma rays, mangoes and flamingoes – then why would I read anything else? The all perfect creator of all that is knows a helluva lot more than the author of my textbook about electronic physics or metal recrystallization, and must be an infinitely better writer than a mere human like Tolkien or Tolstoy. I would read it over and over, and devote hour after hour to learning it. Even if I only had a snippet – lacking the whole thing, it would be a treasure worth more than countless mere human books.

    Would I, faced with the wonder of our universe (not to mention the idea of a burning Hell or a blissful heaven), and offered a chance to hear from the very creator himself, waste even a minute watching a sitcom, or necking, or playing pool, if I could instead spend that time directly drinking in the words of the maker of all? Of course not – that would be a huge statement of what little significance I put on the word of God.

    Would I tolerate a human to change the word of God, from what God gave us to something that is more in line with what a human wanted, though it still seems to have the “general meaning” God intended? Of course not – every jot and tittle would be perfect, and changes would therefore be blasphemy. To make even a small change would be saying that I either didn’t think much of God, or that I considered myself on par with or superior to God, or that I didn’t consider the rendition we have to be reliable.

    Yet almost no-one, not even those who call themselves Bible-based Christians, acts as if they really believe the Bible is the word of God. Most Christians haven’t even read it all (!). It certainly isn’t memorized and recited over and over, or used to wallpaper our homes, or played over and over on the radio, as would be the case if we really believed it was the actual word of God – at least, I’d be in favor of all those things if I took seriously the idea that it was the word of God. Instead, Christians treat it as “interesting” or “worthy of respect” or “occasionally useful”. The few who do seem to take this word of God idea seriously are the scariest of the fundamentalists – for good reason, since the Bible has some pretty scary parts (yes I’ve read it).

    What we just saw on this thread, where new concepts are woven into an openly changed text and no one seems to mind, again underscores that fact that most Christians don’t seem to believe that the Bible is the actual word of God any more than us non-Christian do.

    What do you think? How would you handle text that you really believed to be words from the almighty creator of everything seen and unseen, the master of universe and the decider of the destiny of every living thing?

    -Equinox


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 179 by Phat, posted 05-11-2007 2:09 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 181 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2007 12:07 AM Equinox has not yet responded

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    1011
    12
    1314
    ...
    17Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018