Printable View
Not at all. It's trying to read english from 1500 AD. Hence my assumption about Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Sorry for making an ass out myself on that count. I still would like to see what a bible scholar/translator would have to say about any specific issues rasforos has.
The page belongs to the Apostolic Pentecostal Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Firstly I apologise if some of the information is inacurate because I do not know a lot about protestant christianity. If the said church is not protestant then please accept my apologies.
This is the link http://www.christianity.gr/apokalyps...hp?kefalaio=22
You can scroll down and see that the verse '21' under 'αρχαιο κειμενο' = 'ancient text' says:
Η χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ᾽Ιησοῦ μετὰ πάντων.
This is false. The ancient text says, as we mentioned:
Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων· ἀμήν.
So we have an intentional change in the original by omitting part of the final verse.
No, I'm quite explicitely saying there is no one near competant enough to produce the translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I believe that particular one originates with Jerome. Early Protestants essentially tried to Ape the Vulgate quite a lot. So you can add "flawed method" to "bad sources".Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
This is why Greek and Hebrew are necessary for serious theological courses.
Any church with 'Apostolic' in its name is probably not that likely to reflect the views of mainstream Protestants. Since Apostolic usually equates to Episcopal (although not always), it tends to mean Catholicism without the Pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasoforos
Also the Pentecostals are quite an unorthodox bunch. And they make a very strange combination alongside the apostolic tradition. :shrug:
Calvin used Greek and yet the 5 points of TULIP are all evident within the KJV. Similarly you could teach Catholic doctrines with a KJV, or Orthodox doctrines, or liberal doctrines, or any doctrine you want, just as surely as you could do it with a Latin or Greek translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I have yet to see any doctrine interpreted through a KJV to be proven inconsistent with other translations.
Looking into the original Greek/Hebrew words can help clarify minor points of detail (there are some gems supporting the Trinity for example), but I really don't think it is necessary to understand either the message of the Bible, or any broad Biblical outlook.
Actually, all the largest Protestant Churches are Episcopalian. Consider, the largest denomination in the world after Catholicism and Orthodoxy is Anglicanism. Also, "Catholicism without the Pope" is very different to "with the Pope".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Catholic religion is hardly something to be sniffed at, and it is much better than a lot of the Christian alternatives. Unless you prefer Phelps.
Which is, frankly, putting is mildly. I'm not going to discount visions and profecies any more than the ability to cause a man to a explode by pointing and cursing him. I'll even buy into demons and witchcraft, but not that often.Quote:
Also the Pentecostals are quite an unorthodox bunch. And they make a very strange combination alongside the apostolic tradition. :shrug:
You mean the five sola's? The KJV was explicitely written to confirm them, part of the problem.Quote:
Calvin used Greek and yet the 5 points of TULIP are all evident within the KJV. Similarly you could teach Catholic doctrines with a KJV, or Orthodox doctrines, or liberal doctrines, or any doctrine you want, just as surely as you could do it with a Latin or Greek translation.
You're missing the point, when you translate something you inflict your prejudices upon it. Therefore no translation is safe. As I said, a WORD is not the same as a LOGOS. In order to read the Bible as it was intended you need to learn and inhabit it's text, the same as anything else. Demanding that it conform to you is a bit much if you think it's infallable.Quote:
I have yet to see any doctrine interpreted through a KJV to be proven inconsistent with other translations.
Looking into the original Greek/Hebrew words can help clarify minor points of detail (there are some gems supporting the Trinity for example), but I really don't think it is necessary to understand either the message of the Bible, or any broad Biblical outlook.
Am I the only one here who thinks she deserves it?
Hmm... Tough call. On one hand she's clearly guilty of being a moron and not following the laws of the country she was visiting, after all, when in Rome.... On the other hand, she's 75 and 40 lashes might kill her. Death sentence for mingling would be harsh even by Saudi standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
She was obviously trying to score some young sausage and those guys obviously have a thing for baseballs in socks. I bet the breastfeeding part happened when he was 15.
Those laws are in place for a reason, they are tried and tested and true. If it weren't for such social regulation, most places in the Middle East would be backwards, oppressed, hungry and uneducated.
Largely due to the fact that the Reformed churches tend to fragment much more, so no one denomination can claim to have a large membership. I would consider the Anglican Church to be no more than a rival Papacy, since it effectively stuck the king in place of the Pope. And I agree the Catholic Church is not to be sniffed at. It's a real enigma for me, because on the one hand it is Christian and can spread the message of salvation, on the other hand it doesn't do this as effectively as other churches, and I believe that it will be the harlot church of revelation. This isn't a particularly anti-Catholic view, since many of the early Christian writers accepted that Rome fitted the bill for the future apostasy within the church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Suggesting Phelps is the only alternative to the apostolic churches is quite unfair. :no:
Same, I think we agree its sounds pretty dodgy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I was referring TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverance of the saints). And the monarchy at the time was not favourable to the Puritans and their Calvinist views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I know, like Jeremiah 31:33 says, the law of the New Covenant is written on our hearts, not tablets of stone at with the Old Covenant (nor is the New Covenant simply written in the hearts of the Bishops of the apostolic tradition, so I don't need their opinions to create doctrine thank you very much). I accept your point that the word is open to interpretation when we come to translate it, but I still challenge you to disprove the accuracy of the teaching of any Calvinist or Reformed doctrine through the Greek translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
IMO the English is perfectly adequate for conveying the message of the Bible, any theologian worth the name would know to check up on the original Greek/Hebrew versions before establishing a major doctrine. I do not think this is a sufficient reason to deny the average person the word of God, and place all the power in a select priesthood, we know where that led to before...
I know MRD is channeling Swift, but I can't tell with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I thought I was quite clear. A law might be dumb, but it's still a law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
And Luther was a drunk, a heretic, and an antisemite. This isn't a particularly anti-Protestant view, but merely a a historically accurate statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
She was having bread delivered to her.
Presumably for sustenance, and not to complement the young sausage.
Are you saying that she should starve to avoid 40 lashes? Furthermore, since she's a Syrian native, is it possible that she was ignorant of how the ridiculously complex Wahhabist nonsense works?
As a side note, I vote we test the weapons systems we sell to the Saudis on their religious police.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with her. Wahhabist ideology is sickening, their methods are an insult to any sensible human being, however, Saudi Arabia is *their* country and they can run it whichever way they want. If they try to impose their ways on other countries, THAT is where I would see a problem. The way it is, I cannot dictate to them how they should and should not live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
All true to an extent, although the heretic bit is more personal opinion I would say. Luther really didn't like Calvin for what its worth, although Calvin said "If Luther a thousand times calles me a devil, I will ever acknowledge him to be an industrious servant of God"Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Calvinism has spent too long on the defensive and its reflected in the churches today, for all the talk of anti-Catholicism, Calvinists have always shown a respect to other denominations within the bounds of Christianity that is rarely shown in return.
Without Luther there would be no Calvin. It all stems from Luther.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
And credit to him for it, he did great work for the Christian faith! But he would have identified more closely with Catholicism than Calvinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If schism and discord is "great work", then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
He didn't just cause a schism out of badness. Calvin devoted his life to freeing the scripture from past traditions and superstitions, to the point he lived in a constant state of mental and phyiscal exhaustion. He actually did work hard to reconcile with Luther, through the work of Melancthon, who both Calvin and Luther respected. Unfortunately, Luther was a bit crude at the discussions table, in fact he went so far as to scrawl scriptural verses all over it when Calvin tried to explain his viewpoint on the eucharist to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So yes, I believe Calvin served the Christian cause very well, and tried to work as well as he could with fellow Christians, while remaining true to his beliefs.
EDIT: Wait, I think you mean Luther. He also worked hard to reconcile with the Papacy, unlike Calvin he merely viewed himself as reforming it. He wasn't so keen to work with Calvin though. I'm guessing you are Catholic so probably you would agree with him in this respect.
So you're a 'let the genocide happen' kind of guy, as long as it stays strictly in-country?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get a moral pass for letting injustice happen without doing anything just because they're in a different country.
CR
Not at all. The difference between Wahhabism and Genocide is that Wahhabism is a set of rules and however idiotic those rules might be, as long as you follow them the powers that be will leave you alone. There is no set of rules in genocide. Jews can't stop being Jewish, Tutsis can't stop being Tutsi, Armenians and Assyrians can't stop being Armenian and Assyrian. So, it's a big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Not theologically correct, as historically the King controlled appointments, a power the Pope appropriated (arguably unconstitutionally) in the 11th Century. If you remove the Pope then the Church automatically becomes an arm of the state, given that European monarchies are theocratic. The King, however, is not theologically equivilant to the Pope, nor is the Primate of Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Many of the most considered and philosophical Christians I have met have been Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists and similar denominations. I have not many Evangelical Christians of the same stamp, those that are usually from clerical families.Quote:
And I agree the Catholic Church is not to be sniffed at. It's a real enigma for me, because on the one hand it is Christian and can spread the message of salvation, on the other hand it doesn't do this as effectively as other churches, and I believe that it will be the harlot church of revelation. This isn't a particularly anti-Catholic view, since many of the early Christian writers accepted that Rome fitted the bill for the future apostasy within the church.
He is a direct result of a relaxed attitude to Church governance.Quote:
Suggesting Phelps is the only alternative to the apostolic churches is quite unfair. :no:
The Elizabethan and Jacobean Monarchies were Calvinist Episcopalians. A predeterministic theology helps to support an oppressive regime.Quote:
I was referring TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverance of the saints). And the monarchy at the time was not favourable to the Puritans and their Calvinist views.
A Bishops will have devoted 20+ years of his life to ministry before investiture, his education, bredth of knowledge and vocation invarriable make him far better to pronounce on theological issues than a member of his congregation. The Bishop here is a sensetive man who is widely read and an excellant preacher. His Dean is cut from a similar mold. If you do not have such men who devote their lives to the Chruch, you are in a sorry state; if you have them and ignore them you are worse.Quote:
I know, like Jeremiah 31:33 says, the law of the New Covenant is written on our hearts, not tablets of stone at with the Old Covenant (nor is the New Covenant simply written in the hearts of the Bishops of the apostolic tradition, so I don't need their opinions to create doctrine thank you very much). I accept your point that the word is open to interpretation when we come to translate it, but I still challenge you to disprove the accuracy of the teaching of any Calvinist or Reformed doctrine through the Greek translation.
This assumes that the congregation do not require direct access to scripture, at that point you have talked yourself into Catholicism circa 1350.Quote:
IMO the English is perfectly adequate for conveying the message of the Bible, any theologian worth the name would know to check up on the original Greek/Hebrew versions before establishing a major doctrine. I do not think this is a sufficient reason to deny the average person the word of God, and place all the power in a select priesthood, we know where that led to before...
You have not shown a great respect for Catholics here, have you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Actually, Luther followed Huss, and Huss followed Wyclif.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
John Wyclif was the first to challenge transubstantiation, argue for the translation of scripture and for the circumscribing of Papal power. His teaching was condemned at Blackfriars in 1382. After the Law of Burning was passed in 1407 he was condemned a heretic and his bones were dug up and burned.
Significantly, during his lifetime he was only banned from Oxford and retained his rural benefice, to which he retired.
The view that such absurdities that can happen as long as it's their country is very pragmatic and one I agree with. Above all Saudi Arabia is an important oil provider and allied to the US in the region, so interfering with their fanatical lunacy as some kind of world policeman will do no good for either parties or the whole world for the matter. The last thing we need is to cut down essential energy sources merely because of our sensibilities.
And I'm curious on how this religious discussion sprung up :inquisitive:.
EDIT - I'm surprised at some of the statements here. First, Philipvs, the only true example of oppressive regime in this period would have to be Spain. Second, Catholics are not the anti-christ, although their own hierarchy and their persistent interference in secular matters means they are far more prone to corruption than other denominations. Clerical Celibacy, in fact, one of the many non-Scriptural institutions of this Church, can be ascerted as one of the causes of the frequent sexual scandals involving Catholic priests.
That said the Catholics I've met are usually more moderate than the Evangelical rabble I had to deal with more than once.
I don't want to change there laws. I agree if you go to SA you need to abide by there laws. I posted this here so we could talk about how much better we are than the Saudis!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Not necessarily, look at the nationalised churches under the absolutist monarchs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Well the only Christians I've met who have any knowledge of the scripture (in English) are from the Reformed branch of Christianity, often the smaller sects. For example, I have a friend who is a Reformed Baptist, and a relative in the Plymouth Brethren, both are much more evangelical and theologically learned than any one else I've met in RL. Similarly, on the Christian forums I frequent, usually people will state how they have free will because they think they do, before a Calvinist actually refutes them with scripture,.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
He's like an internet troll thrown into RL, and there is nothing Christian about him on any level. I suspect he is more a direct result of several generations of inbreeding rather than a lack of church governance, why do you think its only his family at the Westboro Baptish Church?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
To call them Calvinist is stretching things quite a bit. Generally, they viewed Arminianism as a 'compromise' between Calvinism and Catholicism. It's the organisation of a church that allows it to be oppressive, not the doctrine, otherwise how would the doctrine be enforced?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
History is testament to the fact that the Catholic Churhc was quite apt at being oppressive without being deterministic.
Every individual should devote their lives to the church. The church shouldn't be constrained within the four walls of a building, faith must be something evident in a person as they go about their everyday tasks, in every part of their life. Look at how Jesus took the common people as his disciples, to make them fishers of men. Anyone can grow in their understanding of the scriptures by living the Christian life, "the way" as they referred to it when Jesus was around. A system which teaches that only certain people can devote their life to "the way", that only they are capable of forming doctrines, is extremely dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
At University last term, I studied the Scottish Covenanters, namely those murdered in the wake of the Restoration in 1660. And when I read their letters which they had written when they were sentenced to death, I was really shocked at just how comprehensive their knowledge of the scripture was. These were ordinary people, and yet they were certain in their beliefs, referencing from all over the Bible, you can't say they were just brainwashed with Calvinist propaganda. I have never seen anything like this with, say, the Catholics who were persecuted immediately prior to the restoration.
The English version is accurate enough to be considered scripture, you can double check the Greek for those very rare occassions when it is needed to clarify a point of doctrine. If they can't, it's not a big deal, they've still got the bulk of the good book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Ordinary Catholics are mislead by their leaders, sometimes to the point that their salvation is threatened. Should I pretend that this is acceptable in the name of toleration? Maybe I should also kiss the Koran and bow to Mecca, why can't we all just get along?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
They were the early seeds of change, although Lutheranism kick started the Reformation on a serious scale. You can't really pick a single date and say that it was the beginning of the Reformation, the Culdees could have been living by it all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And this is based on what exactly? Misled how? These just empty words backed by nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Based on the actions of the previous Pope. And to top if all of a "Palace of All Religions" is now being built in Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Still just empty words. Specifics. Give me some specifics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
A sample from John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Here he is kissing the Koran:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Here's a little background on the plans for a palace of all religions.
And how exactly is that misleading? And who is being misled? JP2 aside from being a saint, was tolerant and non-bigoted. That is a *good* thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr