responding to common objections to bible

[Sigurd]

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

[total relism]

Sorry to bring this up again at such a late stage in the discussion.

I do not know what type of Christianity TR adhere to. It seems to me to be some sort of evangelism according to his sourced material, but he doesn't appear to be using typical evangelist rhetoric with the words that are actually his.

There is a clear difference of meaning in all of the verses I quoted, even the first three.

In Acts the difference is the assurance of IF you will be saved or not. KJV claims its is certain. The Words shall save you. You are saved. The NEB is more reluctant and says the words will bring salvation, but you are not in the clear.

The Roman verses (incidentally, major sources for evangelist teaching) are on the same line. WHEN will you be saved? the first simply reinforces the teaching that it can happen today. The NEB says it might happen in the future.
The latter... THE evangelist verse... the one they hinge their salvation belief on - says in the KJV that as soon as you say the words - You are my Lord, Jesus - you are considered saved. While the NEB clearly states that it will lead to this.. you find the path to salvation through the Lord Jesus, meaning it starts with Faith in the Lord and if you are valiant he will save you.. in the future.

Me thinks many of the Christian denominations don't particularly like the New English Bible translation. But as TR likes to believe there are originals out there, the NEB claims to be translated from original sources by competent scholars which were not under pressure of a King with a religious agenda.

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups. Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.


I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

[Sigurd]

i believe the bible, not any man made doctrine or theological perspective. So i would most likely have opinions that fit and put me outside all groups.

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

Could you please re-post the versus your referring to? i could only find brenus that posted a few.

I can link the post.

I have actually not heard of the New English Bible translation, but i gurentee its not 100% the word of god,the original. Yet i say we do have the original 100% today, confused? please read my op, no english translation could be 100%. But just to let you know,jahovahs witness and the new world translation,also claim to be word of god and translated by scholars.

Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

[total relism]

So, you don't belong to a denomination? you don't go to church or have been baptized?

I can link the post.


Well... you are talking to one who doesn't have a particular bias against any honest attempts to translate an ancient text. If you belong to a evangelist denomination, you would of course have bias towards any translations that disagrees with your particular flavor of Christianity. That would be the Catholic bible (with more books), the JW New World Translation or the LDS inspired version of the Bible and any other scripture not in the KJV.

edit: re-reading your post... You say that no translation is 100% true towards the bible. Have I understood you correctly?
And I have read your OP and it is only section 7 that I find interesting.
I have many objections towards what you presented, but it would take days to explain my position in detail.

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.



I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.


acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.


romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.


translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.


jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.


yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

[Sigurd]

i have been drinking so well see how this goes.

*cough*

I do go to church but that means nothing to following any set of doctrine etc i debate the pastor on many things etc. I attend a baptist church. I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all, yet i may agree with them over majority of protestants on a few issues, i feel the catholic church led me to atheism when young.

Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.

acts
as i said before, this is differences in english language from hundreds of years, not diffident translation/change meaning. I think that is clear. The neb says " bring salvation" salvation is brought by these words in both passages.

romans
i would say clearly same thing,your comparing language over hundreds of years, no doctrine differences.

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?

translation
you assume their is some bias towards matching my personal beliefs, the bias is towards what the original says. I have no bias towards the catholic bible, or any translation that translates accurate from original. I dont like the kj best, i do like the nkj, that does not mean it best.

jw and Mormons are not christian.as far as i know Mormons use same bible,those movements are modern,not christian.

Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.

yes i do not see any one translation as 100% accurate.

Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?

[total relism]

*cough*


Right... I guess one of those debates with your pastor goes along the dogma of baptism. Since you was baptised as an infant and not the proper way (according to them). They don't believe in infant baptism and that a baptism must be done by immersion.

I don't think you understand the subtleties in the differences of dogma that I am pointing to. Question: Do you consider yourself saved?


Not saying that you have bias... just saying that evangelists have bias against any bible not supporting their dogma. I have encountered this many times. Even here when I pulled verses from the New World Translation in a discussion.
I do like the KJV because of its beautiful English.
About the JW and Mormons being christian or not. I don't think you qualify to make any judgement on this. I do know the Mormons claim to be christian but I am unsure if the JW do so.


Right... so how are we to be inspired or enlightened by the original bible - if it does exist, but is not available to us?

sneaky?

no i agree with baptist on baptism. I had no choice but to be Baptized as baby, not much i could do lol.


yes i believe i am saved, but as i stated their is no differences in "dogma" or theology.Wording and english language through the years from 1600 yes.



what bible dont support " evangelists" what do " evangelists" believe anyways? your suppose to evangelize?. tell me what bible says not to?. I think you misunderstand greatly,there is no entire diffident bibles that teach different theology. There is debates about proper theology. You make much of catholic/Evangelist act like they have diferent bibles. Please watch debates as i do, they dont argue text on bit,they argue meaning. Here is conservative evagalist and catholic debating on many subjects.
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apo...tholicism.html


they both do claim to be christian, but what qualifies you?i base chritian on who jesus/bible,not modern sects created recently that change bible/jesus. Acording to jesus/bible they are not, so i go with that.


but it is, read my op for more on this, its been their since,well the op of this thread lol.

[Sigurd]

no i agree with baptist on baptism. I had no choice but to be Baptized as baby, not much i could do lol.

I asked if you were baptized, and you replied that you were, as a child. Then you say you agree with the baptists on this issue. I am confused. Are you baptized or not. If you agree with the baptists, then should not consider yourself baptized.

yes i believe i am saved, but as i stated their is no differences in "dogma" or theology.Wording and english language through the years from 1600 yes.

what bible dont support " evangelists" what do " evangelists" believe anyways? your suppose to evangelize?. tell me what bible says not to?. I think you misunderstand greatly,there is no entire diffident bibles that teach different theology. There is debates about proper theology. You make much of catholic/Evangelist act like they have diferent bibles. Please watch debates as i do, they dont argue text on bit,they argue meaning. Here is conservative evagalist and catholic debating on many subjects.
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apo...tholicism.html

?? Dogma is church specific interpretation of principles of the bible. Of course there are differences in dogma. If not there wouldn't be 35 000 different Christian denominations. You lot.. the "born again", evangelists believe you are saved based on the KJV specific wording on this issue. While other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future. NEB does support THAT DOGMA and discards YOUR (as in your branch of Christianity) DOGMA. Meaning you can't show a debatant your view using the NEB translation. You need the KJV.

they both do claim to be christian, but what qualifies you?i base chritian on who jesus/bible,not modern sects created recently that change bible/jesus. Acording to jesus/bible they are not, so i go with that.

Do you see anywhere in my post where I claim I am better qualified at this? I merely point out that any particular self-proclaimed Christian can't pass judgment over the next self-proclaimed Christian whether this person is or is not a Christian. Why would you say Mormons are not Christian? JW are followers of Jehovah and they believe that He is distinct from Christ.

but it is, read my op for more on this, its been their since,well the op of this thread lol.

It exists.. but you don't trust translations. Do you read Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? My guess is no.. so we are back at square one. As soon as someone translates - it becomes corrupt.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I...I was baptised as a baby in catholic church, i do not consider myself catholic at all....

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics.

[Kadagar_AV]

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics.

[total relism]

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics.

and to atheist i believe in a imaginary man in the sky,to islam i am infidel etc i dont care what you may think of me,i do care as asked what i think of myself. but yes my aunt always tells me that, i do go to catholic church with her sometimes.


you may like
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-c...ce-be-with-you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k_9mXpNdgU

[Seamus Fermanagh]

and to atheist i believe in a imaginary man in the sky,to islam i am infidel etc i dont care what you may think of me,i do care as asked what i think of myself. but yes my aunt always tells me that, i do go to catholic church with her sometimes....

I understood your point without you having to restate it. I was simply having a bit of fun (while noting Catholic doctrine on the issue).