Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 931 of 1000 (728844)
06-03-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 929 by PaulK
06-03-2014 3:00 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
Gosh you're right I haven't studied Metzger, I'm enough familiar with his attitude toward God's word to despise the man and never want to read more than I absolutely have to. Burgon has the preeminent qualification of respecting and believing God's word.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 929 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2014 3:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 932 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2014 3:11 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 932 of 1000 (728845)
06-03-2014 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by Faith
06-03-2014 3:06 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
quote:
Gosh you're right I haven't studied Metzger, I'm enough familiar with his attitude toward God's word to despise the man and never want to read more than I absolutely have to. Burgon has the preeminent qualification of respecting and believing God's word.
Condemned out of your own mouth.
Prejudice is no friend to the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 3:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 933 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 3:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 933 of 1000 (728846)
06-03-2014 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 932 by PaulK
06-03-2014 3:11 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
Prejudice is no friend to the truth.
Prejudice acquired by knowledge of the truth versus the lies of the devil is definitely a friend to the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 932 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2014 3:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2014 3:30 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 934 of 1000 (728847)
06-03-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 933 by Faith
06-03-2014 3:19 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
quote:
Prejudice acquired by knowledge of the truth versus the lies of the devil is definitely a friend to the truth.
And if you were to show the humility proper to a Christian - or any honest person with a concern for the truth - you would know that YOUR prejudice is no friend to the truth..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 3:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 4:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 935 of 1000 (728849)
06-03-2014 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by PaulK
06-03-2014 3:30 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
The Lord once "spoke" to me about humility, pointing out that it is not humility to submit meekly to false doctrine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2014 3:30 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2014 4:51 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 936 of 1000 (728852)
06-03-2014 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by Faith
06-03-2014 4:09 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
quote:
The Lord once "spoke" to me about humility, pointing out that it is not humility to submit meekly to false doctrine.
But it is humility to accept the possibility that you are in error. To take pains to try to avoid error. To not judge others based solely on your prejudice. To avoid double standards. To allow evidence that speaks against you, instead of seeking to suppress it.
This is not a great level of humility -even unbelieving sinners can manage it. Why is it so far beyond you ? Ask yourself that, if you your pride will allow you to admit it, for it is a truth that you have made obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 4:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 6:14 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 937 of 1000 (728855)
06-03-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 936 by PaulK
06-03-2014 4:51 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
The Lord once "spoke" to me about humility, pointing out that it is not humility to submit meekly to false doctrine.
But it is humility to accept the possibility that you are in error.
Not necessarily, which is what I've been trying to get across. It depends on the circumstances. It was when I was having strong inner objections to something a pastor had preached, but was trying to be generous and hunble about it and give him the benefit of the doubt and all that, that God clearly "told" me that stance I was taking was not humility, not audibly but unmistakably in the very words "That is not humility." I knew in my spirit the preacher was wrong but I was ignoring what I knew in the effort to be humble.
To take pains to try to avoid error. To not judge others based solely on your prejudice. To avoid double standards. To allow evidence that speaks against you, instead of seeking to suppress it.
Sometimes that is what is called for, sometimes not, and in the case of knowing the character of a God-fearing man like Burgon and a man who puts himself above God's word like Bruce Metzger, there is no doubt what is the right position to take. When I know my "prejudice" is solidly grounded in God's word then I have no reason to vacillate on my judgment. This isn't about evidence against ME, some opinion of my own, this is about knowing what GOD's position is, and that is never ever to be compromised.
This is not a great level of humility -even unbelieving sinners can manage it. Why is it so far beyond you ? Ask yourself that, if you your pride will allow you to admit it, for it is a truth that you have made obvious.
Again, this is not about me, this is about God and that can never be compromised. It's not that hard to know if it's you or if you are being true to God or not, as long as you are committed to God's word above all else.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2014 4:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 945 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2014 1:18 AM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 938 of 1000 (728858)
06-03-2014 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 910 by Faith
06-02-2014 11:10 PM


I wouldn't doubt that the majority of churches accept the modern versions as authoritative, that's what I've been lamenting.
It's a pity really. Europeans, sick of the tyrannical manner in which their Autocrats were mandating religious positions upon the masses fled to America to find a place they could live and practice their religions freely. Centuries later and people are complaining that there is TOO much diversity of belief, such that the majority can't oppress the minority because everybody is the minority in some fashion.
Frankly I agree with you for reasons quite contrary to yours. Severely limiting religious freedoms and mandating religious practices (eg., I was obliged to pray and sing hymns at school) has caused many Europeans to distrust and dislike religion in general leading to a heavy secularisation (particularly in North Western regions - I haven't looked it up, but it seems to be the Protestant ones (ie have a long history of Protestantism) are more secular or even godless entirely).
Huge religious diversity has made it very difficult for American anti-theists - one church behaving badly only reflects poorly on a small number of people. It kind of turns into wack-a-mole for them
The Catholics are really the only ones that still have to deal with the guilt by association issue in such a direct way. It's hard to find excuses (but they still do!) for funding an organisation that (in parts) kidnaps, abuses and murders children, while the head of that organisation, aware of many of these things, acts to keep them secret and protects the guilty and misinforms the innocent. You don't want to be like the Catholics, right? Stay diverse, safety in numbers. The secularist nazis are coming, after all.
As for the Mormons, I've seen a King James Bible with the Book of Mormon sewn into the center of it, as if it were equal to scripture.
Yes, that would be the reason. Presumably because the BoM is scripture.
I know its not your scripture, but if you apply that standard then I'm obligated to deny that the Bible is scripture - which results in absurdity when we try and communicate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 910 by Faith, posted 06-02-2014 11:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 940 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 7:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 939 of 1000 (728859)
06-03-2014 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by herebedragons
06-03-2014 8:39 AM


Personally, I don't know anyone that suggests the KJV is NOT authoritative
It's funny. I'd find it hard to think of anyone that does, but that's because I know hardly any Christians and they sure as shit don't talk about all the time.
My Grandmother is a regular Church of Englander and I think KJV is her preferred source, but I have seen her with some revised version or another.
If I understand correctly, they rely very heavily on the BoM and put it on the same level as the Bible.
Like most Christians don't know most of the contents of the Bible, and way too many have never even read it, I'm sure the same is true of Mormons. Since Mormonism isn't significantly embedded in the culture, they kind of need the extra bump from the BoM to get their faith.
Definitely not considered "conservative" or "evangelical"
I'm pretty sure they are famed for their conservatism aren't they? And as far as evangelism, how many Mormons have you had at your door? They come round my street just about every week in summer. Different ones each time, but the one that speaks is almost always American. I'm not sure that's a winning strategy for converting British people.
Have you ever read how he came about "receiving" the text of the BoM? Pretty bizarre story.
I like the bit where the neighbours wife destroys/hides the first and only 'translation' and challenges him to rewrite it. The fact that the convicted fraudster (and I believe, later, murderer) couldn't do it didn't seem to dissuade the believers somehow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by herebedragons, posted 06-03-2014 8:39 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 940 of 1000 (728861)
06-03-2014 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 938 by Modulous
06-03-2014 7:12 PM


I wouldn't doubt that the majority of churches accept the modern versions as authoritative, that's what I've been lamenting.
It's a pity really. Europeans, sick of the tyrannical manner in which their Autocrats were mandating religious positions upon the masses fled to America to find a place they could live and practice their religions freely. Centuries later and people are complaining that there is TOO much diversity of belief, such that the majority can't oppress the minority because everybody is the minority in some fashion.
But this is silly and completely misses the point. Having an authorized version of scripture simply makes communication easier. It's not that there's a great deal of difference in the meanings, mostly there's an absence of scriptures in the new versions that are in the KJV, and an irritating difference in wording that accomplishes absolutely nothing but unnecessary confusion.
How does "diversity" in the sense of diversity of meaning in the scriptures -- or of totally unnecessary wordings -- serve anybody? You are mixing apples and oranges. Having a reliable authoritative version of the scriptures is hardly to be compared to having a Pope.
But let me ask: Are there readings in the modern Bibles you think it's necessary to preserve against the KJV's readings?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2014 7:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 941 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2014 8:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 941 of 1000 (728864)
06-03-2014 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by Faith
06-03-2014 7:29 PM


But this is silly and completely misses the point.
I specifically told you that my reasons were quite different, so obviously as they were not aiming at your point, they would miss it.
You are keen to call other people's ideas silly aren't you? You don't seem to like it when others do it you.
Having an authorized version of scripture simply makes communication easier.
I disagree entirely. A single authorised version may not fall into the language comfort zone of some people, making it harder for them to communicate because they don't feel they really get what's going on.
that accomplishes absolutely nothing but unnecessary confusion.
I've never seen this confusion. If anything, I find reading a variety of versions gives me a sense of what is going on better than sticking to one. It leaves me considerably less confused.
How does "diversity" in the sense of diversity of meaning in the scriptures -- or of totally unnecessary wordings -- serve anybody?
Different people respond to different styles of writing differently. Some love the Jacobian tone of KJV, others find it terrible and awkward and confusing. Some think the NLT is too casual, but think NIV reads well. It maximises the comfort of the diverse range of people who speak English.
Having a reliable authoritative version of the scriptures is hardly to be compared to having a Pope.
I agree. But having a single authoritative source dictate that one single version is 'authoritative' on true Christians, is quite papal.
But let me ask: Are there readings in the modern Bibles you think it's necessary to preserve against the KJV's readings?
In Message 872 I mentioned
Rev 22:19, Prov 11:16, Prov 19:18
We could start there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 7:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 942 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 11:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 942 of 1000 (728877)
06-03-2014 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 941 by Modulous
06-03-2014 8:07 PM


But this is silly and completely misses the point.
I specifically told you that my reasons were quite different, so obviously as they were not aiming at your point, they would miss it.
You are keen to call other people's ideas silly aren't you? You don't seem to like it when others do it you.
Well, it IS silly to compare religious freedom with having dozens of Bibles done mostly to make money.
Having an authorized version of scripture simply makes communication easier.
I disagree entirely. A single authorised version may not fall into the language comfort zone of some people, making it harder for them to communicate because they don't feel they really get what's going on.
The point of revising the KJV is to modernize its language. It still needs that revision it never properly got thanks to the 1881 fiasco.
However, the KJV is not that hard to get used to. I was dismayed when I realized I was going to have to switch to it a few years ago, but it turns out to be not that hard to adapt to it. HOWEVER, again, the point of convening a committee to revise it is to modernize it so that it will be more accessible to those who think they are allergic to its language.
And a third point is to try to get across again what I mean by communication. It is very hard to be in a congregation where everybody has their own translation. Before the sermon we have a unison reading which we have to read from a printed sheet because we all have different translations of that passage. Then an elder gets up to read the passage for the day and it's in some translation you don't have so it's hard to follow along. Then the pastor preaches from his preferred translation which may be different from the elder's and yours. In Sunday School they pass out a printed passage to memorize. It isn't in your preferred translation. It is not easy to look up verses in online Bibles or the concordance because you have a mixture of different translations for that verse in your head. This makes for cacophony and confusion rather than communication.
that accomplishes absolutely nothing but unnecessary confusion.
I've never seen this confusion. If anything, I find reading a variety of versions gives me a sense of what is going on better than sticking to one. It leaves me considerably less confused.
I find the English word choices for the Greek at the back of the concordance sufficient to resolve most such questions myself, or a dictionary can help if necessary, and then commentaries if it's a really difficult passage.
How does "diversity" in the sense of diversity of meaning in the scriptures -- or of totally unnecessary wordings -- serve anybody?
Different people respond to different styles of writing differently. Some love the Jacobian tone of KJV, others find it terrible and awkward and confusing. Some think the NLT is too casual, but think NIV reads well. It maximises the comfort of the diverse range of people who speak English.
Diversity of meaning is very dangerous, diversity of wording is just confusing. This is the word of God we're talking about. The Church is a corporate body that shares this word of God. It only makes sense that we have a translation we can all share, recite, memorize and discuss easily with each other. Again, it is not hard to adapt to a language style if necessary, especially if it's preached from consistently and quoted frequently and so on. But again I'm talking about the need for a modernized KJV which would presumably solve a lot of the language problems. HOWEVER, again, getting used to the KJV as is isn't anywhere near as difficult as you are making it out to be. And once you're convinced, as I have been, that it is trustworthy whereas all the others are not, you simply make the effort. Since you're not convinced you wouldn't of course.
Having a reliable authoritative version of the scriptures is hardly to be compared to having a Pope.
I agree. But having a single authoritative source dictate that one single version is 'authoritative' on true Christians, is quite papal.
I'm sorry, I just find this notion extremely silly.
But let me ask: Are there readings in the modern Bibles you think it's necessary to preserve against the KJV's readings?
In Message 872 I mentioned
Rev 22:19, Prov 11:16, Prov 19:18
We could start there.
You aren't distinguishing between the Greek text and the English translation. If the KJV were to be updated now as I keep suggesting the idea would be to find the clearest way to render it in English without destroying its universally acknowledged superiority of phrasing that has had enormous impact on the English language, literature and culture. This has nothing to do with the Greek texts and I don't see that you said anything about that anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 941 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2014 8:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 943 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2014 12:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 957 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2014 5:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 943 of 1000 (728880)
06-04-2014 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 942 by Faith
06-03-2014 11:02 PM


You aren't distinguishing between the Greek text and the English translation. If the KJV were to be updated now as I keep suggesting the idea would be to find the clearest way to render it in English without destroying its universally acknowledged superiority of phrasing that has had enormous impact on the English language, literature and culture. This has nothing to do with the Greek texts and I don't see that you said anything about that anyway.
If you meant readings in the Greek text, how about Matthew 16:20? The Textus Receptus, following the Byzantine texts, turns this into nonsense; in the Alexandrians, it makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 942 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 11:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by Faith, posted 06-04-2014 1:15 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 947 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-04-2014 1:22 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 944 of 1000 (728886)
06-04-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 943 by Dr Adequate
06-04-2014 12:42 AM


I wouldn't say nonsense, but it seems it would be preferable to say "the Christ" rather than "Jesus the Christ." Perhaps this is one of the places where the Alexandrians do a better job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 943 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2014 12:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 945 of 1000 (728887)
06-04-2014 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 937 by Faith
06-03-2014 6:14 PM


Re: text types and spoiled wine
quote:
Not necessarily, which is what I've been trying to get across. It depends on the circumstances. It was when I was having strong inner objections to something a pastor had preached, but was trying to be generous and hunble about it and give him the benefit of the doubt and all that, that God clearly "told" me that stance I was taking was not humility, not audibly but unmistakably in the very words "That is not humility." I knew in my spirit the preacher was wrong but I was ignoring what I knew in the effort to be humble.
That would really depend on when you have good grounds for your knowledge, wouldn't it ? If you don't, then admitting that what you "know" is uninformed opinion, not fact, would be simple honesty.
quote:
Sometimes that is what is called for, sometimes not, and in the case of knowing the character of a God-fearing man like Burgon and a man who puts himself above God's word like Bruce Metzger, there is no doubt what is the right position to take. When I know my "prejudice" is solidly grounded in God's word then I have no reason to vacillate on my judgment. This isn't about evidence against ME, some opinion of my own, this is about knowing what GOD's position is, and that is never ever to be compromised.
If course it is evidence about you. You make it all about you. That's why you complain so bitterly when you are caught saying something silly. That's why you claim that your arguments are good even when it has been shown that they aren't.
But by your own words you do not care about the actual facts. Your views about Burgon's great scholarship, the value of his arguments, even his morality are all dictated by the fact that his position and his conclusions are the ones you agree with. Likewise you see no need to find out the truth about Metzger, hating him because he disagrees with the unBiblical doctrines you cling to.
That's bad enough when it's just your own opinions but when you expect us to believe it ? When you expect us to accept your opinions as fact based on your own prejudice and hate ? You are setting yourself up as a false God - there is no other description - you are asking us to accept that your belief dictates reality.
But it doesn't.
quote:
Again, this is not about me, this is about God and that can never be compromised. It's not that hard to know if it's you or if you are being true to God or not, as long as you are committed to God's word above all else.
Being committed to words you put into God's mouth is no virtue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by Faith, posted 06-03-2014 6:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by Faith, posted 06-04-2014 1:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024