RE: About the "Flood" ...

RE: About the "Flood" ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 11:38:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved It was not enough to have faith in Jesus, one must follow in his footsteps. Good, we agree. Paul's point, of course is accurate too. One is not likely to follow in his footsteps without the belief/faith. And if one has the faith, then one would be acting on it by following in his footsteps. If one isn't following in his footsteps, then that is good indication that one lacks the faith. Which of course, I brought up in that part that you cut out, when I said faith and works go hand in hand.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 11:46:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved It was not enough to have faith in Jesus, one must follow in his footsteps. Good, we agree. Paul's point, of course is accurate too. One is not likely to follow in his footsteps without the belief/faith. I disagree. One need not believe in the divinity of Jesus to respect his wisdom. quote: And if one has the faith, then one would be acting on it by following in his footsteps. If one isn't following in his footsteps, then that is good indication that one lacks the faith. And when did you give all you had to the poor? quote: Which of course, I brought up in that part that you cut out, when I said faith and works go hand in hand. I hear a lot of faith, but not so much on deeds. Matthew 19: 16-30 Where is your faith?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:01:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved You want me to place my faith in you rather than the words of the bible which I quoted? Yet another strawman. I didn't suggest that at all. Then I am sure you won't mind me referring you to the bible of my ancestors since the time of King James. You see. The men who wrote it, they also said they understand all the greek and hebrew necessary to provide a clear and true presentation in english. If they were wrong, imagine how many of my ancestors they sent to the lake of fire for not believing in the one true god. I would hate to think those translators were responsible for heresy. And considering how many centuries have gone by without correcting the King James version, one can only look with bewilderment at someone saying "some guys think the translation is wrong", or words to that effect. So you see, while some might think such a statement might bolster their argument, they are, in fact, expressing an opinion against direct quotes that have stood the test of time for centuries. No contest.

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I disagree. One need not believe in the divinity of Jesus to respect his wisdom. Well, Jesus claimed he was divine. So either he was lying, a madman, or really divine. quote: And when did you give all you had to the poor? This is not required to "follow in the footsteps of Jesus". Jesus himself was wealthy enough to have a treasurer. Now if you're referring to what Jesus told the rich man, there's a reason he said that to him; not as a blanket commandment. quote: I hear a lot of faith, but not so much on deeds. Did you miss the part where I referred to Paul talking about Abraham acting on his faith with works?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:13:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I disagree. One need not believe in the divinity of Jesus to respect his wisdom. Well, Jesus claimed he was divine. So either he was lying, a madman, or really divine. Correction. Someone several decades later wrote that Jesus made this claim. quote: quote: And when did you give all you had to the poor? This is not required to "follow in the footsteps of Jesus". Jesus himself was wealthy enough to have a treasurer. Now if you're referring to what Jesus told the rich man, there's a reason he said that to him; not as a blanket commandment. ~smile~ "By their fruits will ye know them" Is it said anywhere Jesus owned a home, land, livestock, a boat ...? Is it even said that he owned the clothes on his back? Yes, his group had a treasurer, Judas Iscariot, to handle the donations given them for the poor. That doesn't make Jesus "wealthy". Jesus himself was broke. Otherwise, his instruction to the rich young prince would have been pure hypocrisy, for how could Jesus tell the prince to give all he had to the poor in order to be perfect if Jesus himself hadn't already done this?

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:14:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved And considering how many centuries have gone by without correcting the King James version, one can only look with bewilderment at someone saying "some guys think the translation is wrong", or words to that effect. And yet, we now have the Young's translation, the Darby translation, New International, etc. Scholars have learned a lot about Hebrew since the days of King James, and while they did a fantastic job with what they had, it's pretty indisputable among language scholars these days that there were things they did not know.

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I disagree. One need not believe in the divinity of Jesus to respect his wisdom. Well, Jesus claimed he was divine. So either he was lying, a madman, or really divine. Correction. Someone several decades later wrote that Jesus made this claim. quote: quote: And when did you give all you had to the poor? This is not required to "follow in the footsteps of Jesus". Jesus himself was wealthy enough to have a treasurer. Now if you're referring to what Jesus told the rich man, there's a reason he said that to him; not as a blanket commandment. ~smile~ "By their fruits will ye know them" Is it said anywhere Jesus owned a home, land, livestock, a boat ...? Is it even said that he owned the clothes on his back? Yes, his group had a treasurer, Judas Iscariot, to handle the donations given them for the poor. That doesn't make Jesus "wealthy". Jesus himself was broke. Interesting it is, that apparently you'll cherry pick the scriptures you can twist to something you agree with, while claiming you don't believe other parts of the same scriptures (Such as where Jesus proclaims himself the Messiah.) quote: Otherwise, his instruction to the rich young prince would have been pure hypocrisy, for how could Jesus tell the prince to give all he had to the poor in order to be perfect if Jesus himself hadn't already done this? Do you really not understand the why to your question? The prince was in love with his wealth. It was more important to him than salvation. For him to be able to truly seperate himself from that and follow Jesus, he needed to do exactly what Jesus told him. I see no reason to go into detail about how much I do give, it's not the point. It's just clear that Jesus doesn't expect everyone to be broke and destitute to follow in his footsteps. And I won't even get started on the 100 fold principle.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:26:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved And considering how many centuries have gone by without correcting the King James version, one can only look with bewilderment at someone saying "some guys think the translation is wrong", or words to that effect. And yet, we now have the Young's translation, the Darby translation, New International, etc. Scholars have learned a lot about Hebrew since the days of King James, and while they did a fantastic job with what they had, it's pretty indisputable among language scholars these days that there were things they did not know. Should you study the history of the bible you will find that the interpretations rendered very much were determined by the political necessities of the day. I use the King James not because I believe it to be the express word of god, but because it has been the standard used in the english world since 1611, and thus has had a great deal to bear on how Christianity is defined in the English world (which is not to deny Catholics the recognition their contributions have earned). Your need to soften the words of the King James is understandable. King James is no longer politically correct and thus we get new "experts" with new, more palatable "interpretations" to once again make the bible relevant to modern society. Tell me, is Paul still telling people that if they are slaves they should be satisfied with their lot in life? Or has that been cleaned up now?

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I use the King James not because I believe it to be the express word of god, but because it has been the standard used in the english world since 1611, and thus has had a great deal to bear on how Christianity is defined in the English world (which is not to deny Catholics the recognition their contributions have earned). Regardless of any inaccuracies it may have? quote: Your need to soften the words of the King James is understandable. King James is no longer politically correct and thus we get new "experts" with new, more palatable "interpretations" to once again make the bible relevant to modern society. More logical fallacies. (A combination of a strawman and begging the question, in this case.) I once suggested a drinking game based on your logical fallacies, but decided against it, due to everyone involved likely dying a quick death from alcohol poisoning. I have no need to soften the words of the King James. Most of it is accurate enough that I stick to it for ease of use. Any time I ever have a dispute with the King James, you'll see me doing nothing but trying to be as accurate to the source as I possibly can be.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved Otherwise, his instruction to the rich young prince would have been pure hypocrisy, for how could Jesus tell the prince to give all he had to the poor in order to be perfect if Jesus himself hadn't already done this? The prince was in love with his wealth. It was more important to him than salvation. For him to be able to truly seperate himself from that and follow Jesus, he needed to do exactly what Jesus told him. The way you won't seperate yourself from your wealth. Matthew 6: 24-34 Where is your faith?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I use the King James not because I believe it to be the express word of god, but because it has been the standard used in the english world since 1611, and thus has had a great deal to bear on how Christianity is defined in the English world (which is not to deny Catholics the recognition their contributions have earned). Regardless of any inaccuracies it may have? If they exist, how screwed up is god's plan for salvation that millions of people were misled into the lake of fire because they honestly believed the translators got it right? And what of all those who used earlier, less perfect translations? quote: quote: Your need to soften the words of the King James is understandable. King James is no longer politically correct and thus we get new "experts" with new, more palatable "interpretations" to once again make the bible relevant to modern society. More logical fallacies. (A combination of a strawman and begging the question, in this case.) I once suggested a drinking game based on your logical fallacies, but decided against it, due to everyone involved likely dying a quick death from alcohol poisoning. I have no need to soften the words of the King James. Most of it is accurate enough that I stick to it for ease of use. Any time I ever have a dispute with the King James, you'll see me doing nothing but trying to be as accurate to the source as I possibly can be. And how many millions will you mislead with your imperfect translation? How are we mere mortals to know whether yours is the right one or not?

Moonhead -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 12:49:14 PM)
Well if we're talking about misleading translations, that whole "virgin birth" thing is a load of shit, isn't it? That crept in when the New Testament was translated from Greek to Latin.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 1:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Well if we're talking about misleading translations, that whole "virgin birth" thing is a load of shit, isn't it? That crept in when the New Testament was translated from Greek to Latin. Do you think the translators would tell us if they discovered they'd been mistranslating that passage and it actually said Jesus was an illegitimate child? "Oops! Sorry about that" [8\|]

SaintIntensity -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 1:07:49 PM)
virgin birth? shepherds? cough plagiarism again cough http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras.php "thou shalt not steal" (but good stories don't count!)

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 2:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved The way you won't seperate yourself from your wealth. Matthew 6: 24-34 Where is your faith? Between me and God. Anything you say on the subject is sheer blind guessing with no fact.

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 2:12:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved And how many millions will you mislead with your imperfect translation? How are we mere mortals to know whether yours is the right one or not? So, do you have a source for my "translation" that could mislead millions? Oh wait, there isn't one...just me saying "this might not be right, and I don't know for sure." (Yep, another logical fallacy from BLoved. Again.)

Moonhead -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 2:28:22 PM)
The virgin birth thing I mentioned above? That's definitely a translation error.

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 2:41:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Well if we're talking about misleading translations, that whole "virgin birth" thing is a load of shit, isn't it? That crept in when the New Testament was translated from Greek to Latin. Well that's something I'd heard once, but never really followed up on it, since if it wasn't a virgin birth, it would have really no effect on my faith. But out of curiousity I looked into it a bit, and it seems the old testament word for virgin could basicly mean "A woman of marriagable age", which in that society basicly meant a virgin, but not definitively. It could go either way. However, in Matthew, when Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, and the Angel appeared to him, the Greek word used was "parthenos" to refer to Mary...which indeed means "Virgin." Therefore, as far as I can tell right now, there wasn't a translation error from Greek to Latin.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 2:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved The way you won't seperate yourself from your wealth. Matthew 6: 24-34 Where is your faith? Between me and God. Anything you say on the subject is sheer blind guessing with no fact. Well I hope you and your god have a good time punting the rest of us into the lake of fire, because by the looks of it, you're the only one who's getting into heaven.

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 3:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved The way you won't seperate yourself from your wealth. Matthew 6: 24-34 Where is your faith? Between me and God. Anything you say on the subject is sheer blind guessing with no fact. Well I hope you and your god have a good time punting the rest of us into the lake of fire, because by the looks of it, you're the only one who's getting into heaven. Another logical fallacy. :p Red herring, appeal to emotion, non sequiter, possibly a strawman. My response was in regards to your assumptions about what I do with my wealth, and my faith in regards to your quoted scripture.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625