|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 192 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-10-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <TCE: A few factual points you may want to consider are that words such as "hell", "lake of fire," "eternity", "Everlasting", "forever and ever," are all mistranslations and are in the process of being phased out of the scripture completely. > In <some instances> that is correct. But in some instances, those words mean exactly what they say. It it God's call who will be condemned. The New Testament warnings are so numerous, I don't see how you can possibly disregard them. God Himself has warned man what is in store for the disobedient. And ignoring those warnings while appealing to 3 and 4 word phrases plucked out of context is a shabby way to handle the bible. |
|
| Aug-10-10 | | cormier: http://www.usccb.org/nab/081010.shtml |
|
| Aug-10-10 | | cormier: Hell is only for the be-fallen-angels-arch of course ..... by by, tks ps. they are disguise as light but will add 0(dissapear) and are worth zero |
|
| Aug-10-10 | | Travis Bickle: Hey Elvis, If Hoah hadn't had great faith in The Lord he may have asked this question. ; P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIPa... - CCR |
|
| Aug-10-10 | | playground player: <The Chess Express> What I "would" or would not have is irrelevant. Nobody goes to Hell because I would have it so. To put it as simply as possible, universal salvation and reincarnation are not Christianity. By the way, there was--of course!--absolutely nothing wrong with Mother Teresa taking care of sick Hindus and Muslims. There may be someone out there, somewhere, who would say there was--but nobody I know. Do I trust modern humanist re-translators of the Bible? Absolutely not. |
|
Aug-10-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Travis> that is the tightest song ever recorded. I usually name Won't Get Fooled Again as the best song ever, but sometimes I have to go for Who'll Stop the Rain. Fantastic understated drum line, probably the best drumming ever for someone not named Keith Moon. Each instrument is magnificent on its own, but is collectively just as beautiful. Not a stray note, not a wasted millisecond of sound. I think only the Who could come close to that. |
|
| Aug-10-10 | | The Chess Express: I like most of CCR's stuff. Too many songs to list. There's very few bands I can say that about. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<playground player>>>> To put it as simply as possible, universal salvation and reincarnation are not Christianity.> It worked for the earliest Christians and it works for me. The one thing that these discussions clearly show is that we all take from the scripture what we want and dismiss the rest. No wonder there are 20,000+ branches of Christianity in the world. Perhaps the greatest quality of the scripture is it's ability to speak to such a wide range of people. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | The Chess Express: One of my favorite songs from a Christian singer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2v-... |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> In <some instances> that is correct. But in some instances, those words mean exactly what they say.> In no instances do they mean exactly what they say. They should never have been interpreted that way because there are no words in the earliest copies of the scripture which mean eternal torment. There are no words in the earliest copies of the scripture that even mean eternal. That changes everything. Eternal punishment is what the church rests its entire position on. <<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> The New Testament warnings are so numerous, I don't see how you can possibly disregard them. God Himself has warned man what is in store for the disobedient.> God's message is always the same. Choose Heaven or choose hell. Those are the only two choices we ever have to make. The part that the church leaves out is that hell is simply a temporary condition. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | Alphastar: <playground player> What translations do you trust then? The KJV? If I remember correctly from Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", that one's based on a shaky manuscript. |
|
Aug-11-10
| | OhioChessFan: <TCE: No wonder there are 20,000+ branches of Christianity in the world.> There are 20,000 branches because people don't love the truth. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | cormier: http://www.usccb.org/nab/081110.shtml |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | cormier: tch for human |
|
Aug-11-10
| | OhioChessFan: Here's what some eminent Greek scholars have to say about "eternal": Of aionios (the Greek word used twice in Matthew 25:46 to describe both “punishment” and “life”), W.E. Vine wrote: “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26 and the other sixty-six places in the N.T.” Of the word aionios, R.C.H. Lenski asked, “[I]f this Greek adjective does not mean ‘eternal,’ which Greek adjective does have that meaning? Or did the Greek world, including the Jewish (Jesus spoke Aramaic) world, have no words for eternity or eternal?” According to A.T. Robertson: “The word aionios...means either without beginning or without end or both. It comes as near to the idea of eternal as the Greek can put it in one word” |
|
Aug-11-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Alphastar> all translations have problems. IMHO, the RSV is far better than it gets credit for. But I mostly use the NKJV and KJV. The ASV and NASB are fine, and I don't lose sleep if someone uses the NIV, though I have quit using it. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | achieve: I agree with those having a <very critical> look at translations and being very precise obout sources and various translations by neutral researchers and translators; they're, or were, out-there. The bulk is junk, probably more than 95% , and having access to 3 or 4 different Bibles, translations, STUDY bibles that is - with explanations on controversial translations - is a *must*. Added to that it helps to have some linguistic knowledge and background in both Greek and Latin, the latter to a lesser extent; I personally am still happy to this day that I have been taught both for several years. Becoming and remaining a good Christian and Bible student requires many sacrifices, on many fronts, but the reward may well be immeasurable. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | Alphastar: <OhioChessFan> It's not so much the translations that are problematic (though I would agree that every translation is imperfect), I think, but the differences in extant manuscripts. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | cormier: <<Alphastar>> hi have a good instant-constant precence ... bible(the word) is to be understand as love .... find the kingdom, knock at the door(it's open come in), <ask for the spirit of love to light up the word ..... by, tks> |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | playground player: <Alphastar> Bart Ehrman is a self-identified unbeliever, a rejecter of Christ, and I don't listen to him. The KJV may have its faults, but after more than 400 years, whatever political contamination crept into it has become totally irrelevant--even undetectable. It comes down to a question of trust--not in the translators, but in the Holy Spirit (which Bart Ehrman does not believe in). We can't all learn Greek and Hebrew. Many people in this world are lucky if they have a Bible at all. I happen to prefer the KJV for beauty and majesty of language and for the long-dead status of the translators, which has rendered them harmless. If somebody else prefers another translation, fine, no problem. What I do not trust is any effort to re-translate the Bible so as to get the kind of Bible that serves a live political agenda. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | playground player: <The Chess Express> "It works for me" is no substitute for truth. It is mere relativism, one of the terminal diseases of our culture. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | Alphastar: <playground player> Bart Ehrman's views on textual criticism of the Bible have nothing to do with his leaving Christianity, as he himself has explicitly stated numerous times. (Though he did drop the view of "biblical inerrancy" because of this.) He "rejected Christ" because he couldn't resolve the problem of evil. Do you only listen to people who say what you want to hear? That seems at odds with your earlier statement that <What I "would" or would not have is irrelevant.> |
|
Aug-11-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Alpha: Bart Ehrman's views on textual criticism of the Bible have nothing to do with his leaving Christianity, as he himself has explicitly stated numerous times. > He said so. That settles it. And accepting Darwinism has nothing to do with people rejecting Christianity. <Do you only listen to people who say what you want to hear? > That's a really bad way to conduct one's intellectual search for truth, though is typical of the vast majority of people I encounter. |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | whatthefat: <playground player: <The Chess Express> "It works for me" is no substitute for truth.> Excellent news, then it's time for you to enrol in a science degree. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | Alphastar: <OCF: And accepting Darwinism has nothing to do with people rejecting Christianity.> I guess you're being sarcastic but I think you've got cause and effect backwards here. Exactly because so many churches and Christians explicitly reject a well-established scientific theory, it stands to reason that when people find out that in fact this theory has been correct all along, they will feel cheated by the church, which may lead to them dropping their belief system. Especially if the theory is vital to understanding life on earth. However there is nothing in Darwinism that says "Christianity is false". In fact, most Christians seem to understand this, as they believe in evolution as well. They recognize that the dichotomy between evolution and Christianity, as maintained by fundamentalists, is a false one. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 192 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...