Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've stated this before, I'll state it again. I grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical family. I knew the name "Jesus", I had no idea, no grasp of who He is. I heard a lot about Hellfire, I didn't hear much about hope at all. I heard a lot about the evils of homosexuality. I heard nothing of the abundant mercy of our Loving Father. My revelation of Christ, who He is, did not come from the Bible. It came from the Holy Spirit. I believe I would have had that revelation regardless of whether I knew the name of Jesus or not. Some say that no one would know Christ without the Bible. I did. That is my experience. Most of my life I was afraid of the Bible. God knew that, He reached me personally. I enjoy reading the Bible now, but for a long time I didn't even own one. I was taught by men to be afraid. I was taught by God Himself how to live unafraid.
I've stated this before, I'll state it again. I grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical family. I knew the name "Jesus", I had no idea, no grasp of who He is. I heard a lot about Hellfire, I didn't hear much about hope at all. I heard a lot about the evils of homosexuality. I heard nothing of the abundant mercy of our Loving Father. My revelation of Christ, who He is, did not come from the Bible. It came from the Holy Spirit. I believe I would have had that revelation regardless of whether I knew the name of Jesus or not. Some say that no one would know Christ without the Bible. I did. That is my experience. Most of my life I was afraid of the Bible. God knew that, He reached me personally. I enjoy reading the Bible now, but for a long time I didn't even own one. I was taught by men to be afraid. I was taught by God Himself how to live unafraid.
Always good to hear your story, Geeki.
I don't read the bible for "pleasure" ever anymore. There are passages that stick with me, and I treasure those. But, religion and the all-or-nothing mindset I once had ruined the bible for me. I'm happy for people for whom that is not the case.
Again you talk about things of which you have no understanding. The fact that you make the claim that since we don't have the original texts we can't know what the original texts were displays an ignorance of the science of textual criticism. These textual critics are indeed experts in the field and are quite confident that our New Testament text is some 99% faithful to the original text. And this is because the vast number of New Testament manuscripts makes it possible to compare the manuscripts and identify the textual variants and get back to the original texts with great, though not 100% accuracy.
You denigrate a field of which you know nothing, as well as the men who are experts in that field. As for relying on experts, when you want to learn about any field you go to the experts and learn from them.
I know quite a bit about the field and its premises which you take as truth. They are educated guesses predicated on the belief that the originals actually were NOT significantly altered and their original focus and meanings are discernible. Those are faith-based presuppositions that are unsupportable given that their selection and not just the wording was based on human political processes with an eye toward the very consistency that is claimed to support their validity.
No, I can read just fine, and there was NO MISTAKING what was said. YOU just want to defend your buddy who is one of your main supporters, because what he did makes a mockery of your doctrines and you know it. It's called, RESPECT OF PERSONS, one of those things that you don't seem to think needs to be "discriminated" against in the flesh. Peace
Respect like telling someone they are cursed, simply because they are poor? I didn't feel respected by that. I felt dehumanized.
I don't read the bible for "pleasure" ever anymore. There are passages that stick with me, and I treasure those. But, religion and the all-or-nothing mindset I once had ruined the bible for me. I'm happy for people for whom that is not the case.
Thank you, Pleroo.
It's a beautiful book that in the wrong hands can be used as a weapon of mass destruction. History shows us this. It's something I love, which is why I handle it so carefully. I'm sorry that was taken from you. It took a long time for me to trust God enough to want to read it again.
When you alter a word by expanding its definition to suit a belief – you change the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Show a specific case where a word in the NT was altered by expanding its definition to suit a belief and demonstrate how it changed the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Matthew 25:46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
I'll tell you why - because the one word changes the context of the verse.
(And we all know the rest of the story)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
'Eternal punishment' is not one word. There is no one word that means or has been expanded to mean eternal punishment. Two separate words are needed to convey the meaning of eternal punishment.
I wasn't talking about two separate words, so why are you?
I know quite a bit about the field and its premises which you take as truth. They are educated guesses predicated on the belief that the originals actually were NOT significantly altered and their original focus and meanings are discernible. Those are faith-based presuppositions that are unsupportable given that their selection and not just the wording was based on human political processes with an eye toward the very consistency that is claimed to support their validity.
If you knew anything about the field of textual criticism you would not have made the claim that textual criticism is based on the belief that the originals were not significantly altered. It is well known that there are at least some 300,000 to 400,000 textual variants. But the great majority of these variants are completely meaningless. This was explained in post #53. The number of textual variants that are viable and have an impact on the text is quite small and the impact minor. While textual criticism is both an art and a science, it is not faith based. It is based on detailed examination of the available manuscripts. I already posted comments from some of the textual experts in post #53. And you are in no position to contradict them.
I wasn't talking about two separate words, so why are you?
You brought up the argument that when a word (a single word) is altered by expanding its definition to suit a belief it changes the context. When asked to give an example of a single word being altered by expanding its definition you gave an entire sentence in which 'eternal punishment' was the point of your argument. Your example does not back up your argument.
And without having the actual source material that you quoted so that I can read it for myself in its entirely, I have to conclude that what you quoted is referring to the Targums. And certainly not to the original autographs. Quotes can easily be taken out of context and quote mined. Sorry, but you simply are not trustworthy.
You might as well have come right out with it and called me a liar. I gave you the info where you could get the info right down to the page number. If that is not good enough for you go out and get the study bible it is in.
Quote:
No matter how clearly things are explained to you, you insist on disregarding what has been said. I explained what Jeremiah and the reference to the lying pen of the scribes meant. The text is very clear about it. But you make no effort to try to understand it. I suggested you consult the commentaries but you aren't interested in doing so.
disagreeing with what you say is not disregarding what you say.
Quote:
I explained to you that the word translated 'fear' has the connotation of 'respect, reverence, awe', and that that does not conflict with the word 'love.' And you don't seem to be able to understand that.
It is NOT the same no matter how much you want to make it the same Mike. People can has respect and awe for others and not love them. Take Rome for instance, even their enemies were in awe and respected their power.
Quote:
As for Moses, if you're referring to the fact that he allowed divorce, Jesus explained why he allowed it in Matthew 19:8. This does nothing to argue against inerrancy. Moses allowed divorce. The Bible truthfully records the fact that he did, and it truthfully records Jesus' explanation of why Moses did.
Think about what you are saying Mike. God spoke through Moses correct? Told Moses what to write correct? Moses gave a law that up until Jesus time was thought to have been inspired by God.
So lets make this simple. Was Moses law of divorce inspiration from God? Yes or no If you say yes then you have to deal with Jesus correction. If you say no then you have to deal with something written in the bible that was not inspired by God.
You backed yourself into a corner with no way out.
Quote:
Look. I'm not going to keep repeating things which have already been explained to you. You either are incapable of comprehending what are really very simple things to understand, or you are deliberately just being contrary.
Neither, just pointing out things you do not want to see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(And we all know the rest of the story)
