User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 1:54:13 PM EDT
[#1]
[url]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com[/url]
A question. Why didn't you just pin this to Styer AUGs thread? Or did it get locked after I went to bed last night? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 1:56:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Ever heard of 'The Name of the Rose'?
[url]http://www.mysteryguide.com/bkEcoRose.html[/url] [url]http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/movie/180579[/url] Some things aren't MEANT to be known. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 2:00:08 PM EDT
[#3]
We're not missing out on a single thing.
The same God that created the universe, has superintended the development of the Canon. the King James Bible and it's accurate sister translations, is [b]exactly[/b] what God intended it to be. [b]2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, [red]thoroughly furnished[/red] unto all good works.[/b] We are "thoroughly furnished". We have all we need. His Word is perfect. It is settled in Heaven. He has promised this to us. I believe Him and trust His Word. Edited to fix the spelling of Canon. Caught by my buddy and great theologian, Kar98. [:P] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 2:44:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: The same God that created the universe, has superintended the development of the Cannon. Well, praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 2:48:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Oh goodie another one! [rolleyes]
You guys are in a world of shit when The Hun gets home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 5:38:27 PM EDT
[#6]
I didn't know that Styer AUG had a thread about this. As far as WHO put together the Bible that we now have it sure as heck wasn't God. A group of MEN put it together, plain and simple. The History Ch. had a good program on the other night called "Banned from the Bible" that went into depth about how we've come to get the Bible that we have now. For sure man had a very big hand in what books went into and which books were banned form the book we call the Bible. As for people that say that God has preserved his word, hog wash. More of his word has been throw away by people that didn't like this or that passage in a book and chose not to include it in the Canon of books that we have today. If you get a chance, if it's on again, watched "Banned from the Bible" on the History Ch. and you'll see the truth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 5:41:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Go have a sandwich from the leftover ham from Christmas. Decide what you want to believe on your own and seek affirmation from within not from ARF.com.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 7:21:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Take out a legal sheet. Draw a line down the middle.
One the left side at the top write: Those who believe in a pure and perfect Bible. Underneath that heading write: Those who believe the King James Bible. On the right side write: Those who believe no such thing as a pure and perfect Bible exist. Under that heading you can list agnostics, atheists, buddhists, muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, Arminians, Mormons, SDAs, JWs, earth firsters, Satan worshippers, among others. God has preserved his word just as he promised he would do. Your current opinion does not change that fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 7:45:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Well, technically men 'wrote' the entire book...
As in transcribed it... That does not mean the same thing as authoring it... From a Christian perspective, God authored the words, men spoke them (and later put them on paper)... The same line of thought would conclude that God had his hand in the editing (canonization) process as well... It's very possible for the early Church to read and teach things that were not directly divinely inspired... The modern Church does this as well: At least where I attend there is no rule that ONLY the Bible may be referenced for the purpose of teaching/learning - just that ONLY the Bible is divinely inspired. KJV vs NIV vs pick-your-translation... They all say the same thing, just in different vernaculars... KJV was to those of King James (of England)'s time what the NIV is to us today: a translation of the Bible from a language no common man spoke (Latin or Greek) to one they all did (the English of the day). Modern versions do the same, but use 'American English' instead of previous variants... A side note is that no one claims the translation is infallible, just the original writings... However, the differences present are basically differences of grammar, which do not change the actual meaning of the writing... If anything was 'lost' in translation, it would have been from the more complex languages (i.e. Greek, where you have multiple words for something that English covers with one) to the far simpler but more context sensitive (since one English word can mean so many similar but different things, as opposed to 6 words for 6 versions of a similar thing) English... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 8:05:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Take out a legal sheet. Draw a line down the middle. One the left side at the top write: Those who believe in a pure and perfect Bible. Underneath that heading write: Those who believe the King James Bible. On the right side write: Those who believe no such thing as a pure and perfect Bible exist. Under that heading you can list agnostics, atheists, buddhists, muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, Arminians, Mormons, SDAs, JWs, earth firsters, Satan worshippers, among others. God has preserved his word just as he promised he would do. Your current opinion does not change that fact. What'ya know, Never been grouped with Satan worshipers before. Course I don't know where God wrote down what writings to put in the bible and what not to. But then that is just a fact not an opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 8:41:07 PM EDT
[#11]
It is up to each individual to believe God or not. Each person makes a decision that puts himself on one side of that line or another.
Do you know the first words Satan spoke to man? He said "Yea, hath God said?" to Eve. He succeeded in getting Eve to doubt the word of God. Satan has been using the same ploy ever since. To correct Dave-A, there are those who maintain that God has kept his word and a pure and perfect Bible exists. The NIV and the King James Bible are not the same. The NIV omits thousands of words, and omits references to Jesus' blood, his Lordship, his virgin birth, and many other doctrinal truths. A seven year old in Sunday school could tell you that the NIV is wrong. Just ask the child who killed Goliath and then read 2 Sam 21:19 in the NIV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 9:01:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: The NIV and the King James Bible are not the same. The NIV omits thousands of words, and omits references to Jesus' blood, his Lordship, his virgin birth, and many other doctrinal truths. I do, quite specifically, believe that the Bible complies with it's own profession in 2 Tim 3:16... It's right, everything there is supposed to be there, and such... IIRC (having read NIV, RSV, and KJV), none of the three fails to make the doctrinal points you list... I, of course, have not memorized the entire text, so I cannot gaurantee that no individual references were removed, but the points are still there... And it would stand to reason that there would be less words in one version than another... KJV is written in an entirely different form of language than any of the modern translations... The Bible periodicaly will have to go through retranslation it into modern language, which was the reason for the creation of the KJV, as mentiones earlier... It is this process that has the greatest potential to introduce a false translation, however God's involvement, and the amount of respect that someone who is not INTENTIONALLY trying to produce a false Bible would have for their task tend to guard against this... This would also point to the theory that the least possibility for error in an English translation would go to the KJV, being the first such version... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 9:05:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: We're not missing out on a single thing. The same God that created the universe, has superintended the development of the Canon. the King James Bible and it's accurate sister translations, is [b]exactly[/b] what God intended it to be. [b]2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, [red]thoroughly furnished[/red] unto all good works.[/b] We are "thoroughly furnished". We have all we need. His Word is perfect. It is settled in Heaven. He has promised this to us. I believe Him and trust His Word. Edited to fix the spelling of Canon. Caught by my buddy and great theologian, Kar98. [:P] Do you ever have an original thought of your own????? I'm sure there's an amusing comment begging to be made about someone's arm inside you, working your puppet/muppet strings. But I'll refrain. To paraphrase someone else here; [i]If I was a follower of Jesus and his teachings, I would strive to know evrything about him that I could. I would want to be able to objectively review information and what was being presented to me.[/i] Your point makes no sense. The 'bible' can't be 'perfect' if there are several [b]conflicting[/b] versions of it. Someone has to be wrong!! Or is the koran also a correct interpretation?? Are you going to tell all the Jews that they need to switch to the King James version??? What about the Catholics??? History is filled with corrupt popes and church leaders. Would you accept everything that the pope says? Some churches have gay pastors/leaders. are they reading the 'right' version?? Or is that just evil men at work again and god is powerless to prevent it?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 9:05:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Dave, you are right about what the BIBLE says about itself.
But there are now hundreds of versions that contradict each other. And they cannot all be right. What Satan has accomplished is to raise doubt in men's minds about the purity of God's word. Which is exactly what he set out to do in the garden of Eden, and accomplished. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 11:00:04 PM EDT
[#15]
The King James edition of the Bible was first published in 1611, and judging by surviving copies of previous scriptures, it was completely rewritten from the actual words of the Gospel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 11:39:44 PM EDT
[#16]
I'm gonna read it all, anyway....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2003 11:40:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Where are all these "conflicting" versions of the Bible you guys are talking about?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 12:10:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Post from Only_Hits_Count -
Do you ever have an original thought of your own????? Do [u]you[/u]? I mean [u]other[/u] than the drivel you post questioning other folks' views on such matters as this? [b]Old_Painless[/b] quotes the Bible better than I do, but his thoughts are not original to him. They are the reflected beliefs of a thousand generations of Christians who lived, who died, and who witnessed to those Words of God. I'm sure there's an amusing comment begging to be made about someone's arm inside you, working your puppet/muppet strings. But I'll refrain. Well, if it's a amusing comment, then we all know that it is not [u]original[/u] to you! [:D] To paraphrase someone else here; If I was a follower of Jesus and his teachings, I would strive to know evrything about him that I could. I would want to be able to objectively review information and what was being presented to me. That was well said, however you may have bungled it in paraphrase. Your point makes no sense. The 'bible' can't be 'perfect' if there are several conflicting versions of it. Of course, the Bible is perfect, but the quality of [u]some[/u] of the translations cannot be vouched for, but, thankfully, those questionable translations are few and far between. And generally agreed upon by Christianity in whole. The Christians may have different translations of the Bible, but they all say the same thing: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. That's the New Testament in a nutshell. Someone has to be wrong!! Wrong about [u]what[/u]? Give us an example and we can tell you in a nanosecond who is wrong, or right, or whether there is even an issue about right and wrong. Or is the koran also a correct interpretation?? A correct interpretation of [u]what[/u]? The story that was related to Mohammad in a dream? I would think that it was correctly written down and since the only 'authorized' version of the Koran is in Arabic (which must be the language of the Mohammdean Paradise), I think you cannot argue 'mistranslations' here. Are you going to tell all the Jews that they need to switch to the King James version??? If Jews wish to read their own Hebrew Bible in English, there is no finer translation of it than the King James Bible. If they wish to read of [b]Jesus[/b], there is no better place than the King James translation of the New Testament! What about the Catholics??? Yes, [u]what[/u] about them? Are you getting to a point, or just mumbling on your keyboard? History is filled with corrupt popes and church leaders. And? So? What in the dickens has [u]that[/u] got to do with the translations of the Bible? Try and stay on topic here and don't wander off the subject so wildly! If you wish to start a thread about Roman Catholic Church History, then go post another thread! This one concerns the Bible - how it was organized, how it was translated. Would you accept everything that the pope says? No, and he wouldn't accept eveything that I say. And I can damn well believe that both he and I would not accept everything that [u]you[/u] say! Some churches have gay pastors/leaders. are they reading the 'right' version?? Or is that just evil men at work again and god is powerless to prevent it?? [b]'The Devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose'[/b], [i]The Merchant of Venice[/i], Act 1, Scene 3. Depending upon what denomination they are, such folks may be reading the 'right' version - it is the evil of their own hearts that overwhelms what any other ordinary person would gather from the Scriptures. You really need to read more about the history of Bible translations. It would do you a world of good. Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 1:15:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The King James edition of the Bible was first published in 1611, and judging by surviving copies of previous scriptures, it was completely rewritten from the actual words of the Gospel. Actually, the 1st printed Bible that was printed in "book" form was the Gutenberg Bible written around 1455 which was translated from scrolls...The KJV was translated from the Gutenberg. The KJV of 1611 is VERY different than today's KJV..And I'm not speaking of the NKJV..And you thought today's KJV was hard to read! HOLY COW! (No pun intended) See for yourself [url]http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm[/url] And in my studies in Seminary, we were taught King James VI & I (VI of Scotland and I of England) might have also been a homosexual. That has since been proven to me to be untrue... He was just a very sick man with contempt for the Catholic Church. The Apocrypha and the Psudepigrapha ("Banned Books of the Bible") are very good reads for those who are truly interested in Bible study. But, they were left out of the Canon for a reason. Just like the Protestants have 5 less books in their Bible than the Catholics and I have even seen an LDS Bible that excludes Song of Solomon because of its sexual content. Although, some of the books of the Apocrypha are in the Catholic Bible and were included in the Canon. They have just been deleted from the Protestant Bible. I personally have over 1/2 a dozen translations including the Hebrew and Aramaic translations. Now, if you REALLY want to find out what the words of the Bible mean, study it from those two...The translation I happen to enjoy and carry is the New American Standard. But, the 1st translation I ever read and could understand was the NIV. It is because a Pastor cared enough and gave me that Bible that I am saved today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 1:50:44 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: I didn't know that Styer AUG had a thread about this. As far as WHO put together the Bible that we now have it sure as heck wasn't God. A group of MEN put it together, plain and simple. The History Ch. had a good program on the other night called "Banned from the Bible" that went into depth about how we've come to get the Bible that we have now. For sure man had a very big hand in what books went into and which books were banned form the book we call the Bible. As for people that say that God has preserved his word, hog wash. More of his word has been throw away by people that didn't like this or that passage in a book and chose not to include it in the Canon of books that we have today. If you get a chance, if it's on again, watched "Banned from the Bible" [red]on the History Ch. and you'll see the truth.[/red] Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but By me." John 14:6 [b]NOT[/b] History Channel 14:6 [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 2:38:17 AM EDT
[#21]
[b]I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen. That's the New Testament in a nutshell.[/b] [blue] I could have sworn this was the apostles creed... after spending years of brainwashing in a catholic school as a kid, I still have feeling of guilt for not attending church anymore on sunday.. The Nuns taught us.. [b]It is a Mortal sin to kill.[/b] [b]It is a Mortal sin to Miss Church on sunday[/b] I personally don't see it... [/blue] (rolleyes) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 4:18:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Actually, the 1st printed Bible that was printed in "book" form was the Gutenberg Bible written around 1455 which was translated from scrolls... Let's make sure it's understood that the Gutenberg bible was printed in Latin, specifically in what is known as the Vulgata translation. The first translations of the Bible were of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint was a Greek translation written about three centuries before the birth of Christ. Two other early translations, composed after the birth of Christ, were the Peshitta in Syriac and the Vulgate in Latin. These three translations, the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate became the official translations of the Old Testament for the Greek-, Syriac-, and Latin-speaking churches respectively. Each also became the basis for other translations of the Bible. Luther's translation of the bible was published Sept. 21, 1522. This wasn't the first translation of the bible texts into German, but the most important one. The Gothic Bishop Wulfila or Wölflein (i.e., Little Wolf) in the fourth century translated nearly the whole Bible from the Greek into the Gothic dialect. During the fourteenth century some unknown scholars prepared a new translation of the whole Bible into the Middle High German dialect. It slavishly follows the Latin Vulgate. It may be compared to Wiclif's English Version (1380), which was likewise made from the Vulgate, the original languages being then almost unknown in Europe. The KJV was translated from the Gutenberg. Not true. The title page reads [i]"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."[/i] Also, I wish to make it clear the bible was obviously not translated into English by King James himself, but a team of 47 appointed scholars under his command. The KJV of 1611 is VERY different than today's KJV..And I'm not speaking of the NKJV..And you thought today's KJV was hard to read! HOLY COW! (No pun intended) Well, seeing how ancient Greek and the Biblical Hebrew, not to mention Aramaaic, are dead languages, i.e. nobody speaks them as first, native language, these languages do not change anymore. English however, and German as well, are living languages that do change. Words appear and disappear, meanings change, grammar changes etc. So an upgraded translation of the bible every now and then is a good thing. Remember, it was translated into German and English to make it understandable in first place. If nobody speaks Bishop Wulfila's German anymore, it would be time for a newer translation. Nothing mysterious about this. Personally, and despite the fact that German is my first and native language, I find the KJV of 1611 much easier to read and closer to the original than Luther's German version. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 5:42:31 AM EDT
[#23]
A couple of comments, if I may.
I was going to respond to Only_Hits_Count, but it seems that I would have to have been up at 4 AM to beat Eric. [:D] It turns out that, as usual, Eric did a fine job. So, "What he said." Secondly, my respect for Kar98 just went up another notch. He continues to amaze me. Good job Kar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 7:09:56 AM EDT
[#24]
I, too, watched the History Channel presentation, and was surprised by some of it.
A question for my Christian brethren: If we step back for a moment and regard the issue from an entirely factual basis, rather than Spiritual, we must acknowledge that the Bible is a compilation of writings made by MAN. The decisions to include or reject given works were made by MEN. Now, putting aside for the moment our belief that the men who made these decisions and/or wrote these works were guided by the Living God Himself, what defense can be given in FACTUAL terms that defends their decisions? In other words, why do you believe that a book in the Apocrypha and the Psudepigrapha really ISN'T a valid document? Is it because of incorrect facts, or questionable sources, or some other FACTUAL (of THIS world) reason? I ask this for the same reason I challenge strict Creationists: Simply saying "Because God said so..." is rarely a convincing argument to a non-believer. If, however, we are able to show, either outright or via a preponderance of evidence, that the Bible is historically valid or supported by GOOD science, then its contents carry much more weight, and will be considered more seriously by those we believe need it most. What Satan has accomplished is to raise doubt in men's minds about the purity of God's word. Which is exactly what he set out to do in the garden of Eden, and accomplished. Bingo! We have a WINNER! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 7:46:49 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: I, too, watched the History Channel presentation, and was surprised by some of it. Personally, I don't get my theology from the History Channel. [:D] A question for my Christian brethren: If we step back for a moment and regard the issue from an entirely factual basis, rather than Spiritual, we must acknowledge that the Bible is a compilation of writings made by MAN. The decisions to include or reject given works were made by MEN. Now, putting aside for the moment our belief that the men who made these decisions and/or wrote these works were guided by the Living God Himself, what defense can be given in FACTUAL terms that defends their decisions? Here we are faced with the same argument as always. For some reason that I can't always understand, God chooses to require [b]faith[/b] from us. I believe that he [u]specifically[/u] engineered things so that they cannot be "proven", but must instead, be taken on faith. God superintended the complication of the canon. He did so in a supernatural way. The Bible that we now have is a supernatural document. It was written down by falable men, who God miraculously kept from making any mistakes. He then miraculously steered those involved in determining which works would be included in the Canon. The final Book is perfect, due to the supernatural work of God. That is the belief of fundamentalist Christians. How can I [u]prove[/u] that God did this without basing my beliefs on scripture? I freely admit that I can't. In other words, why do you believe that a book in the Apocrypha and the Psudepigrapha really ISN'T a valid document? Is it because of incorrect facts, or questionable sources, or some other FACTUAL (of THIS world) reason? In the case of the Apocrypha, the Canonical tests found stories that conflicted with the clear teaching in the true books of the bible and they were then discarded. Some of these books have interesting stories and also include some truth. But to be included in the bible, they had to be perfect, without error. I believe that God supernaturally led the councils to reject them as scripture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 7:57:54 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: If you get a chance, if it's on again, watched "Banned from the Bible" on the History Ch. and you'll see the truth. The History Channel will show me the truth? [lol] Dirk |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 8:01:16 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: I ask this for the same reason I challenge strict Creationists: Simply saying "Because God said so..." is rarely a convincing argument to a non-believer. If, however, we are able to show, either outright or via a preponderance of evidence, that the Bible is historically valid or supported by GOOD science, then its contents carry much more weight, and will be considered more seriously by those we believe need it most. Have them read the "Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris and get back to me.... Dirk |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 8:01:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Ol' Painless...
I believe that God supernaturally led the councils to reject them as scripture. So, would your view also support Papal infallibility in matters of faith? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 8:06:18 AM EDT
[#29]
2,000 years later and we're still arguing over this bullshit
+1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 8:15:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Ol' Painless... I believe that God supernaturally led the councils to reject them as scripture. So, would your view also support Papal infallibility in matters of faith? No, it does not. [b]2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, [red]thoroughly furnished[/red] unto all good works.[/b] I believe that upon the completion of the Canon, the Bible was and will forever be, finished. The Pope seems like a nice old fellow, and I bear him no ill will. However, when he presumes to add to the scripture, he is in error and great danger. [b]Revelation 22:18...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.[/b] The Bible is [b]finished[/b]. [b]Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 8:27:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: I didn't know that Styer AUG had a thread about this. As far as WHO put together the Bible that we now have it sure as heck wasn't God. A group of MEN put it together, plain and simple. The History Ch. had a good program on the other night called "Banned from the Bible" that went into depth about how we've come to get the Bible that we have now. For sure man had a very big hand in what books went into and which books were banned form the book we call the Bible. As for people that say that God has preserved his word, hog wash. More of his word has been throw away by people that didn't like this or that passage in a book and chose not to include it in the Canon of books that we have today. If you get a chance, if it's on again, watched "Banned from the Bible" on the History Ch. and you'll see the truth. Yeah, I started a topic about the Gnostic Gospels. You and I are going to hell. Pass me a coke. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 8:28:56 AM EDT
[#32]
I firmly believe that the inspiration of God not only was required for the writing of the Bible (i.e., written by men, inspired by God), but was/is also required for READING the Bible - not merely to read the words on the page, but to read with any understanding & comprehension. God must open our eyes & reveal His truths - which is why we (mere men) cannot simply "make others see" what we hold so dear without His intervention in their lives (not that this relieves us of our duty to witness, proclaim the truth, etc.). This frustrates me greatly, but I believe it to be true nonetheless.
[b]ETH[/b] & [b]O_P[/b]: I always get a big smile on my face when I come back to this site after several days' absence and see you two continuing to "fight the good fight" - I hope your Christmas was as blessed & enjoyable as mine was! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 8:30:25 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: The same God that created the universe, has superintended the development of the Cannon. Well, praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition. [img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1840371226.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img] Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and Their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces [url]http://www.historyofmilitary.com/Rapid_Fire_The_Development_of_Automatic_Cannon_Heavy_Machine_Guns_and_Their_Ammunition_for_Armies_Navies_and_Air_Forces_1840371226.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 9:12:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: You and I are going to hell. Pass me a coke. [:D] Although I don't care for your opinions, it saddens me to see you take this so lightly. [devil] It also shows me your not as smart as you think you are. God Bless your soul, you're going to need it.... Dirk |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 9:17:39 AM EDT
[#35]
The Coptic Bible includes all these books that the Western bible deleted.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 9:31:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: You and I are going to hell. Pass me a coke. [:D] Although I don't care for your opinions, it saddens me to see you take this so lightly. [devil] It also shows me your not as smart as you think you are. God Bless your soul, you're going to need it.... Dirk You know, I do genuinely appreciate the sentiments of guys like you and Old Painless but I'm sure you had your counterparts when people stopped believing in Zues. I just can't bring myself to go for Pascals Wager. [;)] And if there is a hell, at least I'll know everyone when I get there. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 10:28:40 AM EDT
[#37]
The book Song of Solomon is in the accepted KJV of the Bible and is canonized for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
http:/-END Of Script Attempt- ures.lds.org/song/contents Sam 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 10:36:21 AM EDT
[#38]
The question IS NOT how much of the Bible we don't have.
The question is "Why do we wantonly disobey the part of the Bible we DO have?" Hhmmmmmm????? When you are in compliance 100% with the known, existent, widely accepted Scriptural text, check back with me. ONLY THEN is your quest legitimate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 10:44:20 AM EDT
[#39]
realist,
The sin is murder, not kill. We gather together to teach and to learn the gospel. We partake of the sacrament and renew our covenants of baptism. We fellowship each other and befriend new members. We gather together to help others as well as one another and to strengthen the whole. It should be a place where the Spirit is strong. It is a place of reverence and peace. "Church" does not have to be a place to be shunned. It should be a spiritual resource outside the home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 10:44:43 AM EDT
[#40]
Wow, you mean there's a forest there?
Garandman swings, and that nail is countersunk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 11:31:52 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: You know, I do genuinely appreciate the sentiments of guys like you and Old Painless but I'm sure you had your counterparts when people stopped believing in Zues. I just can't bring myself to go for Pascals Wager. [;)] And if there is a hell, at least I'll know everyone when I get there. [:D] SteyrAUG, my friend, the sad part is that if you indeed do fail to accept Jesus and go to hell, you won't know anyone. You will be totally alone. There will be no smug comments or laughter. [b]Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.[/b] The rich but unsaved man found nothing funny about hell: [b]Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.[/b] But the good news is that neither you nor anyone else alive has to suffer that fate. Jesus has paid the price for your salvation. He loves you and doesn't mind your questions or doubts. He will continue to draw you. But Jesus is a gentleman. He will not force you to believe. He only comes into a heart that casts aside doubts and has faith in Him. [b]Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[/b] Continue to ask questions, my friend. I pray that someday you will meet the Truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 12:11:33 PM EDT
[#42]
There are 66 books in the new and old testaments.
The Revelation appears to have been written before Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. and From the Old Testament: DEUTERONOMY 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. We should acquaint ourselves of all good books and languages. There is simply too much we do not know. We should discuss and teach one another, not bicker about things we lack total knowledge of. Let the Spirit guide you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 1:33:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: There are 66 books in the new and old testaments. The Revelation appears to have been written before Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. and From the Old Testament: DEUTERONOMY 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. We should acquaint ourselves of all good books and languages. There is simply too much we do not know. We should discuss and teach one another, not bicker about things we lack total knowledge of. Let the Spirit guide you. And you will offer up some words of wisdom at what point? I mean, nothing you have said so far is of any value. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 2:48:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Ol' Painless... I believe that God supernaturally led the councils to reject them as scripture. So, would your view also support Papal infallibility in matters of faith? No, it does not. [b]2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, [red]thoroughly furnished[/red] unto all good works.[/b] I believe that upon the completion of the Canon, the Bible was and will forever be, finished. The Pope seems like a nice old fellow, and I bear him no ill will. However, when he presumes to add to the scripture, he is in error and great danger. [b]Revelation 22:18...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.[/b] ... OK, but seriously- what's the difference?? In one instance- you seem to say that god intervened and made sure every last letter and pen stroke was correct. But the pope has it all wrong and god lets him continue to guide 1/2 the christians???? (% may be approximate) :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 2:49:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: I just can't bring myself to go for [b]Pascals Wager.[/b] [;)] "Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of [b]no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists.[/b] If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god." Have you read "Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris? Dirk |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 3:10:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Only_Hits_Count said: OK, but seriously- what's the difference?? In one instance- you seem to say that god intervened and made sure every last letter and pen stroke was correct. That is essentially correct. Glad I was clear on that point. But the pope has it all wrong and god lets him continue to guide 1/2 the christians???? That would be God, with a big G. And you have my opinion correct on this also. The key point is that God's Word, His revelation to man, is complete. It is finished. There is nothing more to add. Like I said, I have nothing against the current Pope and don't want to offend Catholics. But I believe that if the Pope says, "I have something to say from God", and it either: 1. Conflicts with Scripture 2. Or adds to scripture Then he is in error. And your question, why does God "lets him continue to guide 1/2 the christians"? As you state, the percentage is off, but we will ignore that for now. God never promises us that there will not be "false prophets" among us. In fact, he warns us to be careful and carefully weigh what they say. In fact we see this issue in Acts: (pardon the scripture, but, well, you know...[:D]) Paul visited the Bereans who were commended because... [b]Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and [red]searched the scriptures daily[/red], whether those things were so.[/b] They listened to Paul, but then compared what he said to the scripture that they had at that time to see if it conflicted in any way. they were commended as "more noble" for doing this. And once again, let me use this as an example of what you and I have discussed before. If I have a question such as this: "What if a church leader tells us something that is in conflict with scripture? What should we do?" The best answer is, as always, found in scripture. Do as the scripture encourages us to do: Search the scripture to see if these things are so. If they do not agree with scripture, throw them out as garbage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 3:17:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Hey.. Some one message me with a link to the thread about the Gnostic Gospels?
And I see the old guard coming out with their thumbs in their ears and sticking out their tongues saying, "Because the Bible says so so naaahhh" It's comforting actually. Some things never change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 3:23:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: And I see the old guard coming out with their thumbs in their ears and sticking out their tongues saying, "Because the Bible says so so naaahhh" It's comforting actually. Some things never change. Why thank you, hydgirl. You can't imagine what a compliment I consider that to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 3:42:20 PM EDT
[#49]
[b]hydgirl[/b], if you are referring to [b]SteyrAUG's[/b] thread about 'The Gnostic Gospels - Banned From the Bible', here is the link:
[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=220626&w=searchPop[/url] But, really, now, when you have read and digested the accepted canon of inspired Scripture, then and only then should you try and read the Apocrypha and the other so-called 'Christian' writings. If I recall correctly, the little bit of the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas' that you once posted and that was alleged to contain some sayings by [b]Jesus[/b] was rather bland and poorly expressed. I suppose that a famous quote by Samuel Johnson could be used to express it best: [b]'Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.'[/b] Those are my thoughts on the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas.' And much of the Apocrypha, as well. Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2003 3:47:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: .....I see the old guard coming out with their thumbs in their ears and sticking out their tongues saying, "Because the Bible says so so naaahhh" It's comforting actually. Some things never change. Good observation. Why do you guys debate this? I start to laugh when someone brings out an old marked-up bible to try to prove a point. My world in made up of data and theories.....but there is plenty of room for faith. Does it really mater what the bible says as long as it inspires good will and faith in our creator? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
