responding to common objections to bible

[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.

[total relism]

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.

?? 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.

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.



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.

no i just have not done so yet, i will do so just have not done it yet, i am waiting to do with my son. I was as baby, i do not count that as true baptism.



never said diffident opinions/theology. you claimed there were difernt bibles ,one for Evangelist one for catholic etc i said that is untrue. The differences are in how to understand the bible. That is clear to all who know/watch debates on the issue etc. the rest of your claim that Evangelist need kj to show saved based on wording in kj is completely false. almost no church uses kj anymore. Your claim can be easily refuted simply by reading a non king james version of the bible

you than claim
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.

please show me were?your making simple mistake in theology that had you any knowledge in bible you would not make it so. Salvation and sanctification.



i disagree fully, as what counts as being christian is what jesus/bible says. Therefore anyone who claims to be a follower must agree with him what bible says. That is why Mormons and jospeh smith are not christian.


please read op sir,until your willing this can go nowhere. I said in op we have the entire original of witch to translate from. You misunderstand what i object to in varying translations.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, may I suggest you read more actual books rather than internet pages, and watch less debates online?

Not only would it do wonders with your English, it might also help you analyze easier. Getting spoon fed is rarely a good idea.

[Sigurd]

never said diffident opinions/theology. you claimed there were difernt bibles ,one for Evangelist one for catholic etc i said that is untrue. The differences are in how to understand the bible. That is clear to all who know/watch debates on the issue etc. the rest of your claim that Evangelist need kj to show saved based on wording in kj is completely false. almost no church uses kj anymore. Your claim can be easily refuted simply by reading a non king james version of the bible

The Catholic Bible has 73 books, while the Protestants adhere to a 66 book bible.
What about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version. Clearly I have showed a difference between two 66 book bibles in this thread. It doesn't take a Master degree in documentation to spot the differences. The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma.
That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively. The Anglican has it as its official version as well as the LDS church. Then you have the Evangelical "KJV only movement" and all sorts of conservative protestants who claim KJV is the superior version. Pentecostals, presbytarians etc... about needing KJV to show saved now vs. saved later - see my post quoting KJV and NEB.

you than claim
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.
please show me were?your making simple mistake in theology that had you any knowledge in bible you would not make it so. Salvation and sanctification.

Again I think you misunderstand. I am not attacking your Sola fide I am not attacking that dogma. It is more or less exclusively the evangelical branches of the protestants that claim they have been saved. There is a difference when churches confuse the tenses simple present and perfect present vs simple future of the verb saved. When does it happen?
As for where... 1. Cor 1:18, 1.Cor 15:2, 2 Cor 2:15 (NEB)

i disagree fully, as what counts as being christian is what jesus/bible says. Therefore anyone who claims to be a follower must agree with him what bible says. That is why Mormons and jospeh smith are not christian.

Then show me using the bible why Mormons aren't Christian.

please read op sir,until your willing this can go nowhere. I said in op we have the entire original of witch to translate from. You misunderstand what i object to in varying translations.

I question your confidence in this. You have only what people claim is the entire bible. Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not.
120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon. The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach. Then you have the whole Hellenistic Judaism that influenced the translation of the canon of the early church - the Septuagint. It is only the "bible is infallible" crowd that claims originality and a complete compilation, typically named in this thread the entire original bible. There is no such thing that is God-sanctioned.

[total relism]

The Catholic Bible has 73 books, while the Protestants adhere to a 66 book bible.
What about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version. Clearly I have showed a difference between two 66 book bibles in this thread. It doesn't take a Master degree in documentation to spot the differences. The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma.
That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively. The Anglican has it as its official version as well as the LDS church. Then you have the Evangelical "KJV only movement" and all sorts of conservative protestants who claim KJV is the superior version. Pentecostals, presbytarians etc... about needing KJV to show saved now vs. saved later - see my post quoting KJV and NEB.


Again I think you misunderstand. I am not attacking your Sola fide I am not attacking that dogma. It is more or less exclusively the evangelical branches of the protestants that claim they have been saved. There is a difference when churches confuse the tenses simple present and perfect present vs simple future of the verb saved. When does it happen?
As for where... 1. Cor 1:18, 1.Cor 15:2, 2 Cor 2:15 (NEB)

Then show me using the bible why Mormons aren't Christian.


I question your confidence in this. You have only what people claim is the entire bible. Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not.
120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon. The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach. Then you have the whole Hellenistic Judaism that influenced the translation of the canon of the early church - the Septuagint. It is only the "bible is infallible" crowd that claims originality and a complete compilation, typically named in this thread the entire original bible. There is no such thing that is God-sanctioned.

of the original bible written, were are these differences between catholic and evangelistic bibles?that was your claim.

what about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version.?


you have shown no differences in theology,just english language in 400 years [kj written in 1611 i think].


your claim
"The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma. "

please support, i think your referring to Geneva bible, also they did not create to challenge catholic, they created with notes etc to better understand and show were catholic were wrong. Did not change text. as i sated earlier a simple knowledge of Catholics and watching any debate on salvation between catholic/protestant will fast show your claims false.

your claim
"That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively"

please support.
NIV Leads 40% of Protestant pastors prefer the NIV Bible says a recent Ellison Research survey.
http://www.sermoncentral.com/illustr...tics-24057.asp
Most Protestant ministers tell pollsters they like NIV above all other Bibles_51704
http://www.baptiststandard.com/resou...er-bibles51704
http://www.christianpost.com/news/su...g-pastors-445/
etc etc



i have asked many times before, could you please show me were a doctrine of a church teaches this saved know vs saved later idea you have?


i will ask once more, could you please show me were a doctrine of a church teaches this saved know vs saved later idea you have?
it seems you are mistaking the possiblity of losing salvation [a debate for sure] with if your saved originally.



well their are many places, but one is matt 23 were it says jesus will be last prophet. Look especially to v 37. last of all i will send my son.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

the bible in many places is clear jesus is last and no more added to bible



god did decide,we have it.


claim
"120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon"


please support

claim
"Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not. "

please support


claim
The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach.


please support


you have watched to much dan brown. Have you ever watched a debate on these claims/subjects?you would not make such claims had you.

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.
Proverbs -14.15

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

claim
"Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not. "

please support

Here is a translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25, written in the Early 4th Century. In this section he lists those books which he deems canonical, then those accepted by most, but rejected by him, then those commonly rejected, he closes by listing those books which are accepted by other denominations but rejected by him.

By contrast, here is the first attested list of what would become a standard 27-book canon, in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367.

This suggests, rather strongly, that the Bible in its standard form now has been compiled by men, whether the original books were inspired by God or not...

[Slyspy]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-2013033064361

[total relism]

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).

ok sorry my bad, did you like those video links?. pretty funny.

Here is a translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25, written in the Early 4th Century. In this section he lists those books which he deems canonical, then those accepted by most, but rejected by him, then those commonly rejected, he closes by listing those books which are accepted by other denominations but rejected by him.

By contrast, here is the first attested list of what would become a standard 27-book canon, in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367.

This suggests, rather strongly, that the Bible in its standard form now has been compiled by men, whether the original books were inspired by God or not...

yeah i got the book. I disagree fully with your claim, Muslims have compiled a book as well as Mormons Jehovah witness etc. Does that make gods word or bible any less? That today many modern liberals see all religions as equal, does that make gods true word [assuming there is one] no longer true?.

[Sigurd]

I have been busy building...

TR... I will not be able to provide you with links to sources on the internet for my claims. Most of it comes from literature way before the internet. Mostly are books written by scholars from different denominations. People that devoted a life time to the study of these things. I just think it too sad that they are no longer with us to withstand the flow of this age's Arianism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Monarchiansim, Monothelitism or Gnosticism. Which I believe is the result of an unchecked evolution of the protestant movement. There are no body of Protestantism that can dictate or claim divine ruling on dogma or doctrine. With no such authoritative clergy - anyone can go in any direction or interpretation of the canon, establish a church and lay down dogma to be followed and claim that all other denominations are an abomination to God.

I have spent 2 decades in the middle of this and have discussed (debated) with many followers of such. What I found was that the evangelists (I need to put some sort of umbrella on them) lack a common doctrinal foundation. The diversity of opinions on basic doctrine like salvation is astonishing. Rhyfelwyr, our resident ultra protestant, understood immediately the nuance of the different salvations. And I believe it is because he actually has talked to people with different opinions on this specific topic. I have met people from the same church or denomination which had 3 different views on a simple single doctrine. Where is a Paul when needed? Someone who can say: you are wrong - this is what God's opinion on this matter is.

To spout Dan Brown on me is just sad and desperate bad form. I am disappointed.

well their are many places, but one is matt 23 were it says jesus will be last prophet. Look especially to v 37. last of all i will send my son.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...21&version=NIV

the bible in many places is clear jesus is last and no more added to bible

Definition of a prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

You claim Jesus was the last one? I guess we can just throw out the NT then, since it was written without divine inspiration by men, not having prophetic gifts.
Peter, James, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark and Paul were just making stuff up if they were not directly quoting Jesus. This is the consequence of what you are claiming...

Besides, whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not has nothing to do with the claim of being Christians or not (Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus).

[total relism]

I have been busy building...

TR... I will not be able to provide you with links to sources on the internet for my claims. Most of it comes from literature way before the internet. Mostly are books written by scholars from different denominations. People that devoted a life time to the study of these things. I just think it too sad that they are no longer with us to withstand the flow of this age's Arianism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Monarchiansim, Monothelitism or Gnosticism. Which I believe is the result of an unchecked evolution of the protestant movement. There are no body of Protestantism that can dictate or claim divine ruling on dogma or doctrine. With no such authoritative clergy - anyone can go in any direction or interpretation of the canon, establish a church and lay down dogma to be followed and claim that all other denominations are an abomination to God.

I have spent 2 decades in the middle of this and have discussed (debated) with many followers of such. What I found was that the evangelists (I need to put some sort of umbrella on them) lack a common doctrinal foundation. The diversity of opinions on basic doctrine like salvation is astonishing. Rhyfelwyr, our resident ultra protestant, understood immediately the nuance of the different salvations. And I believe it is because he actually has talked to people with different opinions on this specific topic. I have met people from the same church or denomination which had 3 different views on a simple single doctrine. Where is a Paul when needed? Someone who can say: you are wrong - this is what God's opinion on this matter is.

To spout Dan Brown on me is just sad and desperate bad form. I am disappointed.


Definition of a prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

You claim Jesus was the last one? I guess we can just throw out the NT then, since it was written without divine inspiration by men, not having prophetic gifts.
Peter, James, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark and Paul were just making stuff up if they were not directly quoting Jesus. This is the consequence of what you are claiming...

Besides, whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not has nothing to do with the claim of being Christians or not (Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus).

i agree 100% with your first paragraph. that is why just because Mormons Jehovah witness claim to be true christian does not make them.



second, i agree as well, people dont read bible much anymore and instead listen to what others tell them to believe, very very dangerous. You sound like my pastor lol.



but if i remember right your claim was their are books that should be in bible that are not, there gospels, all i can say from watching debates/responses are they are not included for clear reasons.



jesus was last prophet sent, yes i claim because i believe what the bible says on the issue. If your not aware the nt was written by apostles of jesus about jesus, the last prophet. The bible again claims and jesus that the disciples had [and i believe] divine inspiration. So no one was making anything up as you claim.


just what Joseph smith contradicts was my point. As you pointed out yourself first paragraphs, people can change, believe, and say anything, that does not make it so.