The Bible and it's religion.

[IrishEyes]

Ok IrishEyes, feel free to leave us to our discussion of this topic in the theology thread at any time, or add to the discussion. As of yet, you have done neither. The topic, by the way, pertains to Christian church's following the bible. Whether you believe the bible or not, is not a prerequisite to either interpreting it or judging church's by it.

 

And I don't care who you are. I'm replying to your posts as written, that's usually how written communications work. We are after all only comparing ideas here, and we should assist the casual readers with as much info as possible with our posts. Your credulity alone will not bear your opinion over ours, sorry.

Kid, do you have any idea what the heck you are talking about here? Should I buy a clue for you or what?

Feel free to leave you to your discussion or add to it, as I've done neither? LMAO.

Here's an idea for you - before you make statements about people, get your friggin' facts straight. Nothing in my posts in this thread should make you start judging me. But then again, you are a Chtristian, right? That gives you the right to judge others, right?

Geez, I finally get what pissed off Freethinker so much, and how most atheists can get so frustrated with Christians. It's not just that Christians believe something that to atheists seems so lacking in logic. It's that most Christians are so willing to judge people based on their standards, without bothering to check out the whole story.

To any of you that have been to this same level of frustration due to this Christian, please accept my most heartfelt and sincere apologies.

[IrishEyes]

The topic, by the way, pertains to Christian church's following the bible. Whether you believe the bible or not, is not a prerequisite to either interpreting it or judging church's by it.

Originally Posted by eMTee

There are many denominations claiming to be "the Church" and to be "Christian", but how many are actually fallowing the teachings of the very book they base their faith on? "Christianity" is one of biggest religion in the world..coming in at least second or third (to my understanding).

Any questions about anything, or comments?

Ok, kid. I brought back the original, yet again, just for you.

And again, I will ask which version of 'the book' are you speaking of? Which church do you have a problem with? And what the heck gives you the right to decide who is right and who is wrong?

Do you think that you will make it to Heaven? If so, do you think that you will be the only one there? Do you think there might be some Catholics there? Or some Methodists? Or some Pentecostals? Or even Baptists or Mormons?

IOW, who are you to decide who is actually following the teachings of Christ and who is not? It is all in the eye of the one watching, and that changes. As others have already pointed out in this thread, Hitler thought he was following the teachings of Christ. If he truly believed that, then who are you to say that he wasn't? I mean, what Hitler did was bad, for certain. Bad doesn't even begin to describe it for me. But he thought he was doing what the good book said. It's up to each individual's interpretation. Can you not see that?

[Southtown]

"You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." — Matthew 5:43-48

 

Hmmm... I see what you are talking about. Very ambiguous. I can understand how Hitler honestly misconstrued it to mean "kill millions as painfully as possible."

[eMTee]

the verses you quoted still do not explain how any person can determine whether any other person is a 'true' Christian or not.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

John 14:6

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" KJV

 

John 1:12

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."

 

Romans 10:9-10

9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." 10 "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

 

Revelation 3:20

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." (NIV)

 

John 10:30

"The Father and I (Jesus) are one." NLT

 

John 17:5

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me (Jesus) with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." KJV

 

John 3:36

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." NIV

 

John 5:24

"I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life." NLT

 

John 6:47

"I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." NIV

 

John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth (Jesus), and the truth shall make you free." KJV

 

Salvation is only threw Faith and trust in Christ, and not by the works you do.

There is a lot of "Christians" that don't know the importance of the Gospel of Christ. If anyone rejects or neglects it, they have no hope, because God is a perfect God, and he only expects perfection..and His Son (Jesus) came to Earth to to willing and wantingly die as the only perfect sacrifice, to take the place of us and our sinfull state, and whoever accepts Christ as their personal Savior will have life.

 

This is how to determin saved from unsaved.

[C1ay]

Hmmm... I see what you are talking about. Very ambiguous. I can understand how Hitler honestly misconstrued it to mean "kill millions as painfully as possible."

Whatever the reason he said on numerous occasions, "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

[Southtown]

Whatever the reason he said on numerous occasions, "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

And as we all know, human beings are incapable of lying. :xx:

[Southtown]

And FYI, the verses you quoted still do not explain how any person can determine whether any other person is a 'true' Christian or not. If you are going to quote Scripture, at least make it relative to the question that was asked.

I did that, do0d. I said, "all of it." Go check. I'll wait.

 

And how am I judging you, exactly?

[C1ay]

And as we all know, human beings are incapable of lying. :xx:

Can you prove he was lying? A false statement is not necessarily a lie if the teller believes it to be true.

[Southtown]

Can you prove he was lying? A false statement is not necessarily a lie if the teller believes it to be true.

Well, Jesus was a Jew, but I'll leave Hitler's knowledge of things open for speculation.

 

About bible versions:

 

People must choose their bible versions very carefully, because lots of people sell interpretations and not translations. Translation principles are not ambiguous as it is a type of science itself, as well as archaeology and the study of ancient cultures. The New Testament is supported by over 5000 Greek manuscripts, 8000 Latin ones, as well as many more in other languages. The second literary work in terms of copies is the Illiad with 643 manuscripts.

 

85% of the text in the New Testament manuscripts are identical with no variations. Of the 15% of the text that varies the three translation principles yeild a 98-99% agreement. That is the Critical Text (based on older is better,) Textus Receptus (the collection assembled and passed from older cultures,) and the Majority Text (based on more is better.) The one or two percent differences in these three "sorted compilations" have to do mostly with grammar or word order and do not show up in translations in any way.

 

The problem we have is different versions of translation are not translations at all, but interpretations. The categories of translation are literal, formal equivalence, and paraphrase. It is between these types of bibles a knowledgable buyer must choose, and between these three the curious should consider the validity thereof.

[eMTee]

Can you prove he was lying? A false statement is not necessarily a lie if the teller believes it to be true.

" Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews..." -Hitler-

 

Jesus was not a fighter against the Jews.

 

"...I will conclude" Hitler seemed to be an enimy against Christ. And he never was sucessful to whipe out the Jews, so he failed

[eMTee]

I prefer to stick with the KJVs

[C1ay]

Well, Jesus was a Jew, but I'll leave Hitler's knowledge of things open for speculation.

 

About bible versions:

 

People must choose their bible versions very carefully, because lots of people sell interpretations and not translations. Translation principles are not ambiguous as it is a type of science itself, as well as archaeology and the study of ancient cultures. The New Testament is supported by over 5000 Greek manuscripts, 8000 Latin ones, as well as many more in other languages. The second literary work in terms of copies is the Illiad with 643 manuscripts.

 

85% of the text in the New Testament manuscripts are identical with no variations. Of the 15% of the text that varies the three translation principles yeild a 98-99% agreement. That is the Critical Text (based on older is better,) Textus Receptus (the collection assembled and passed from older cultures,) and the Majority Text (based on more is better.) The one or two percent differences in these three "sorted compilations" have to do mostly with grammar or word order and do not show up in translations in any way.

 

The problem we have is different versions of translation are not translations at all, but interpretations. The categories of translation are literal, formal equivalence, and paraphrase. It is between these types of bibles a knowledgable buyer must choose, and between these three the curious should consider the validity thereof.

 

I'll take all of that as a no, you cannot prove he was lying.

[C1ay]

" Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews..." -Hitler-

 

Jesus was not a fighter against the Jews.

 

"...I will conclude" Hitler seemed to be an enimy against Christ. And he never was sucessful to whipe out the Jews, so he failed

None of that proves Hitler was a liar. He was a bad evil man but that doesn't mean that he didn't believe what he preached.

[Erasmus00]

Well, Jesus was a Jew, but I'll leave Hitler's knowledge of things open for speculation.

 

About bible versions:

 

People must choose their bible versions very carefully, because lots of people sell interpretations and not translations. Translation principles are not ambiguous as it is a type of science itself, as well as archaeology and the study of ancient cultures. The New Testament is supported by over 5000 Greek manuscripts, 8000 Latin ones, as well as many more in other languages. The second literary work in terms of copies is the Illiad with 643 manuscripts.

 

85% of the text in the New Testament manuscripts are identical with no variations. Of the 15% of the text that varies the three translation principles yeild a 98-99% agreement. That is the Critical Text (based on older is better,) Textus Receptus (the collection assembled and passed from older cultures,) and the Majority Text (based on more is better.) The one or two percent differences in these three "sorted compilations" have to do mostly with grammar or word order and do not show up in translations in any way.

 

The problem we have is different versions of translation are not translations at all, but interpretations. The categories of translation are literal, formal equivalence, and paraphrase. It is between these types of bibles a knowledgable buyer must choose, and between these three the curious should consider the validity thereof.

 

 

You must be talking strictly about new testament and not about hebrew scripture. Now, as for popular translations, I would point out that where duplicate versions of greek versions of scriptures exist, they often differ. This difference would be compounded in translation, so I don't see how you can assert that 85% of the text is identical, what is your source for this? I would also point out that one of the most popular translations (or interpretation as you would have it) is the King James, which is one of the least directly accurate translations that has been done. (it is however, a fine read compared to some drier translations).

-Will

[Southtown]

None of that proves Hitler was a liar. He was a bad evil man but that doesn't mean that he didn't believe what he preached.

Do we have to prove him a liar, or do we just have to prove him wrong.

 

You must be talking strictly about new testament and not about hebrew scripture. Now, as for popular translations, I would point out that where duplicate versions of greek versions of scriptures exist, they often differ. This difference would be compounded in translation, so I don't see how you can assert that 85% of the text is identical, what is your source for this? I would also point out that one of the most popular translations (or interpretation as you would have it) is the King James, which is one of the least directly accurate translations that has been done. (it is however, a fine read compared to some drier translations).

-Will

Differences Between Bible Versions — Gary F. Zeolla (not available online)

" "over 85% of the text found in all the manuscripts is identical" (Robinson and Pierpont, p.xlii; emphasis in original) " " Gary also says that no two manuscripts are identical, but all the differences occur in 15% of the text, while the rest is untouched. The sum total of content is astonishingly uniform. Which is unusual for so many different copies over so great a time.

 

Differences would not be compounded. Word order and grammar errors are usually washed out of translations since they rarely effect the meaning.

 

King James Version was the best they had in the 16th century, before modern archaeology, linguistics, and study techniques and technology. These days there are far more manuscripts and much better analysis techniques to use in assessing original meaning. There are also far more false copies with interpretations built into them. But the big ones are usually safe.

[Erasmus00]

Differences Between Bible Versions — Gary F. Zeolla (not available online)

" "over 85% of the text found in all the manuscripts is identical" (Robinson and Pierpont, p.xlii; emphasis in original) " " Gary also says that no two manuscripts are identical, but the sum total of content is astonishingly uniform. Which is unusual for so many different copies over so great a time.

 

King James Version was the best they had in the 16th century, before modern archaeology, linguistics, and study techniques and technology. These days there are far more manuscripts and much better analysis techniques to use in assessing original meaning. There are also far more false copies with interpretations built into them. But the big ones are usually safe.

 

I'm not familiar with Zeolla, but it appears he is quoting Robinson and Pierpont, who put together a majority greek text of the New Testament. Their work only applies to GREEK New Testament versions. And, in that context the quote makes sense. Before translating from their original language of Greek, 85% of the text is in agreement, due probably to the religious importance of good copying(funny that even when the price of a mistake is so high, there is still 15% error). After translating to English though, the similarity almost certainly drops.

 

Now, the King James version was commisioned by the King of England to be written as true to the Hebrew and Greek as possible, but most importantly to be good, readable English. Also, it was not to have any marginal notes. Its not accurate, simply because it was not striving to be. Its much less dry then a lot of translations, but certainly loses accuracy for it.

-Will

[C1ay]

Do we have to prove him a liar, or do we just have to prove him wrong.

Well that depends. All I said was that he claimed he was finishing the work of christ, I didn't say he was right. To that you remarked that people are capable of lying. If your remark is a claim that he was lying then that is the burden for you to prove. If that was not your claim then your remark in that context was off topic.