Dear members

New Aimoo has already launched. You are now visiting the old version of Aimoo. In old Aimoo, you can only view, but can`t post, reply and do other operations. To access new Aimoo, please contact the forum owner to submit a forum migration(http://old.aimoo.com/newaimooapplication.cfm) or contact the Aimoo administrator on Facebook. 

Welcome to visit the forum on new Aimoo: http://www.aimoo.com
Close it  
User Name  Password
Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Title: The king james bible
Hop to: 
Views:3762     
New Topic New Poll
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 2    
AuthorComment
Guest
 Author    


(Date Posted:15/08/2011 12:43 AM)
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo

When i was in the grc they went on alot about the king james ,so since i left i have reserched about how we got the king james and find it is the true word of God ,what do you think .
usertype:6
Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 1# 



Reply To Guest
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 2:46 AM)

Reply to Guest

When i was in the grc they went on alot about the king james ,so since i left i have reserched about how we got the king james and find it is the true word of God ,what do you think .

The King James Version (KJV) although the result of translating from a very limited number of Greek New Testament manuscripts, is still the the true word of God in spite of the many minor errors it contains. Never the less it is not the quality of the manuscripts but rather the quality of the message that is communicated from within the translated work itself that earns the KJV the right to be called the true word of God.

However with the rapid advancement of the quality and development of the Science of the art of Textual Criticism since the KJV came into being, I would encourage you to pursue the more up to date translations such as the English Standard Version (ESV) or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) or a very user friendly Never Incorrect Version, oops I should say New International Version (NIV). These will provide you with a far better service in your Bible reading agenda. For correctness, the ESV is pretty hard to beat.

Blessings

Eric


(Message edited by Mishnah On 15/08/2011 2:54 AM)
Support us

Create free forum and click the links below and your donations will make a difference here.

www.dinodirect.com

A Huge Online Store for Various Cool Gadgets, Accessories: Laser Pointer, Bluetooth Headset, Cell Phone Jammer, MP3 Players, Spy Cameras, Soccer Jersey, Window Curtains, MP4 Player, E Cigarette, Wedding Dresses, Hearing Aids, eBook Reader, Tattoo Machines, LED Light Bulbs, Bluetooth Stereo Headset, Holiday Gifts, Security Camera and Games Accessories and Hobby Gadgets.  
Biblianut
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 2# 



Rank:Regular Rookier

Status: Reformed
Posts:218
From: Australia
Registered:30/11/2010

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 3:54 AM)

Eric,

 

How does the ‘American Standard Version’ (ASV, first edition) compare to the ESV?

 

The ASV was my first purchase up on the KVJ and interestingly enough, I got it off the shelf at the Geelong Revival Centre at the time (about 1971). It was then that I started to realize that what was being preached from their pulpit, didn’t match up with what the scriptures were saying.

 

Ralph

usertype:3 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.

Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 3# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 5:23 AM)

Guest,

The KJV is certainly a valid representation of the Word of God in English; however, it certainly isn't the 'best' such representation. It suffers from additions introduced into the biblical text over the centuries, corruptions and deletions in other places, plus the archaic language (i.e. Elizabethan English) and general layout (i.e. each verse is printed as a separate paragraph) are anything but helpful! Furthermore, the edition of the KJV that you hold in your hands isn't the KJV as translated in 1611. What you use is the Blayney (or 'Oxford standard text') edition of 1769. You might be disturbed to learn that your KJV differs from the 'original' KJV in about 35,000 places!

In my opinion the KJV should be relegated to the bookshelf to gather dust. It would be much better a use of your time to engage with a combination of the New International Version (NIV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New Living Translation (NLT). If you can read to an 'average' standard, favour the ESV. If you aren't all that good a reader, favour the NLT.

Ralph,

The American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 was the North American edition of the British Revised Version (RV) of 1881. Consequently both used the Westcott-Hort critical Greek text as the basis for translation. Consequently the ASV is much, much better than the KJV, but it's not as good as, say, the ESV. Incidentally, the ASV was used to produce the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1952, the 1971 edition of which formed the English text base of the ESV of 2001. In short, the DNA of the ESV is roughly 85% RSV, which itself is roughly 75% ASV :)

In summary, the KJV was based on a critical Greek text drawn from a limited number (about seven) of very late (about 10th-12th c.), textually inferior (i.e. 'Byzantine' text-type) manuscripts, and was hastily cobbled together by one man in only a few months. The KJV translation itself is pedantic, the language dated, and the layout stilted. Modern translations are based on critical Greek texts that draw upon the entire mss tradition (numbering about 5,500 artifacts, covering the early 2nd through 15th centuries), they use textually superior manuscripts (i.e. the 'best' readings from throughout the entire mss corpus), and which invariably take commitees between 20 and 30 years to produce. Modern translations are sufficiently nuanced, they use modern English expression, and the text is printed in 'sense units' (i.e. stichoi for poetry, and paragraphs for prose). So, comparing the KJV to any modern version is like comparing a washboard to my Bosch frontloading washing machine! Why on earth would you choose to use the former when the latter is so readily available?!

Blessings to you both,

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 15/08/2011 6:28 AM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Biblianut
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 4# 



Rank:Regular Rookier

Status: Reformed
Posts:218
From: Australia
Registered:30/11/2010

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 7:30 AM)

Ian,

 

Thank you for that.

 

Actually what I have is the ‘New’ American Standard Version, produced by The Lockman Foundation, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, and 1971.

 

Reading a small portion from the ‘Forward’; The Editorial Board had a two-fold purpose in making this translation to adhere as closely as possible to the original of the Holy Scriptures. To make the translation in a fluent and readable style according to current English usage. (This translation follows the principles used in  the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty.). There is much more….true to the original Hebrew and Greek, …. grammatically correct……

 

Blessings back to you.

 

Ralph.

usertype:3 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 5# 



Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 8:34 AM)

Aha! Another reason for ASW to dislike you Ian ..... you have a German Washing Machine!

It is obvious ASW has ignored 'Waschet euch, reiniget euch; schaffet die Schlechtigeit eurer Handlungen mir aus den Augen, lasset ab vom Übeltun" (Isa 1:16 GEB)

Which brings me to a question. What version would you recommend as a German translation of the Bible?

Blessings

Old John



usertype:5 tt= 0
outforgood
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 6# 



From: Australia
Registered:15/02/2011

Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 3:37 PM)

 And I was just think this morning in my devotional time on this exact topic.

Since leaving the GRC, and then eventually coming back to God, I have been primarily using the NKJV, mainly because my wife's family had about 3 lying unused around their house. But have known there are better versions available, but never known the best one.

Thanks guys
usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 7# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 5:14 PM)

Good morning, Ralph.

Well, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say the NASB is particularly 'readable', given that it's about as 'wooden' a modern translation as one can get! It's so 'wooden' that many American Seminaries prefer the NASB for teaching biblical exegesis in English. They do so because it closely mirrors the forms of the Greek text (i.e. it attempts to replicate into English the underlying Greek grammatical structures). Great for exegesis, not so great for reading!

John, long time, no hear!

Ha, ha. Well as you know, ASW has reasons enough to dislike me! He can now add to the list the fact that I appreciate German engineering and build quality ;) Anyway, I don't personally know enough about German translations to offer an opinion, so I contacted a friend of mine who trained in Basel and sought his advice. His response was simple: go with the 2007 edition of the Zürcher Bibel.

'Out',

The NKJV is an improvement over the KJV insofar as general readability goes, but is still suffers from the same deficiencies with respect to its underlying Greek text (i.e. the so-called 'Textus Receptus' of Erasmus). Far better indeed to use one of the three that I mentioned earlier (noting that I should've spelled out that the NIV I had in mind was the new 2011 edition, and not the 1984 one).

Blessings all.

Ian
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Biblianut
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 8# 



Rank:Regular Rookier

Status: Reformed
Posts:218
From: Australia
Registered:30/11/2010

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 6:02 PM)

Ian,

Ha, ha 'wooden', I like that.

I remember my first "exegete" using NASV was from 3 John ch1. The Revs were preaching on "prospering" and that God would increase ones wealth if one gave all he had. I saw at the time in the context of scripture it didn't mean material wealth as such but to 'go on well' or 'have a good journey' in walking in the truth and support for the brethren. 

Ralph

usertype:3 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.

prezy
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 9# 



Rank:Poster Venti II

Posts:343
From: Scotland
Registered:06/02/2007

Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 6:03 PM)

So is the NKJV a new translation, or just a paraphrase of the old one?
usertype:3 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu

Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 10# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 7:05 PM)

Rob,

The NKJV was a new translation of the 'Textus Receptus', but the translation team was largely constrained (by public expectation) to simply updating the language and cadences of the 'standard' KJV. The very best thing about the NKJV, and the one thing that makes it valuable, is that it's marginal notes indicates where it differs from the modern critical Greek texts. In this respect, the NKJV can be somewhat useful as a very basic aid in NT textual criticism for those who are incapable of reading the Greek NT for themselves.

Blessings,

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 15/08/2011 7:10 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

prezy
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 11# 



Rank:Poster Venti II

Posts:343
From: Scotland
Registered:06/02/2007

Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 7:50 PM)

Thanks Ian, I have one here but havnt looked at it really. Mainly using an NIV study Bible. I lead a youth group Bible study and the NIV I use has very useful footnotes and easy to understand language. The youth group Bibles are ESV but it seems to work out OK.
usertype:3 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 12# 



Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 8:09 PM)

Many thanks Ian for the Bible advice.

It has been a while since I had anything to say here. From time to time I have a browse. Things are a lot saner since Galien was given the heave-ho.

I still glean some good things ... like the Eucharist link you posted. I downloaded all 5 "lessons". Again, like healing that you wrote about a while back and many other things, what was bandied in the PRC and the CAI was rubbish at best and at worst totally contrary to scripture, intent and sound doctrine. And of course your old hobby horse CONTEXT. You may or may not remember, that the big shift for me was your explanation of "proof-texting". To say it burst a lot of bubbles in my frame of reference would be an understatement.

I am at present studying in depth, the Battle of Waterloo. Same rules apply. French bias, English bias, German (Prussian) bias, and then there is what actually happened if you did deep and check the facts.

I missed your actual posting, but I gather you are on the move to .... Melbourne? With another pip? Just remember that inside every kernel you usually find a nut. Bad pun.

Blessings,

Old John
usertype:5 tt= 0
Epios
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 13# 



From: Australia
Registered:29/05/2010

Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 10:08 PM)


Hi Ian,

Thanks for the link on the Eucharist.  I began reading last night and am finding it very interesting.

I mainly use ESV, NLT and NIV but KJV is nice for a certain lyrical effect.    I've heard from a progressive, in bible versions, Rev (who I'm sure will not be a lifelong one) that the 2011 NIV is a very good translation superior to the 1984 version. 

The NIV (1984) Reformation Bible and Study Bible are the ones I use as they have good footnotes.    Also the Reformation Bible includes the various Catechisms at the back which I find interesting....and familiar.

How do you view the Holman Bible?  A good while ago I bought a Holman Apologetics Study Bible from Koorong which was out as a special and with an added 20% off in one of their sale days.  It certainly has a different 'feel' to it than the other versions.

God Bless

Epi

ps

As from Advent 2011 it seems the RCC will be making the NRSV (replacing JB) the official bible version of thier new Lectionary. 
usertype:5 tt= 0
Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 14# 



RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 10:24 PM)

I read the king james and find it to be the most sound bible ,considering what text the modern bible come from they are diluting the word each time a translation is put out .Even the new king james has had many words changed ,and have used the alex text in some of it .I also read the geneva 1560 bible which is good and the tynesdale new testament both are good to read . BUT walking with jesus in spirit and truth is the main thing what ever bible you read from.
usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 15# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 10:43 PM)

Hi, John.

Many thanks Ian for the Bible advice. You're certainly welcome, old fella. It has been a while since I had anything to say here. From time to time I have a browse. Things are a lot saner since Galien was given the heave-ho. Illud iterum dicere potes ;)

I still glean some good things ... like the Eucharist link you posted. I downloaded all 5 "lessons". Mike's certainly one of the 'good guys' (despite being a 'rangger'); I've always found his scholarship to be 'top shelf' and well worth mulling over. Again, like healing that you wrote about a while back and many other things, what was bandied in the PRC and the CAI was rubbish at best and at worst totally contrary to scripture, intent and sound doctrine. And of course your old hobby horse CONTEXT. Indeed. You may or may not remember, that the big shift for me was your explanation of "proof-texting". To say it burst a lot of bubbles in my frame of reference would be an understatement. Well, I'm glad you persisted in jousting with me for all those years, then.

I am at present studying in depth, the Battle of Waterloo. Same rules apply. French bias, English bias, German (Prussian) bias, and then there is what actually happened if you did deep and check the facts. The English won: Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

I missed your actual posting, but I gather you are on the move to .... Melbourne? 'Yep'. With another pip? 'Nope'. I declined the opportunity for further promotion about seven years ago (I stood to lose more than I would gain). Just remember that inside every kernel you usually find a nut. Bad pun. Well ... I'm inclined to agree with you, actually ;)

I'm hoping that we might be able to catch up in Melbourne, some time. Wagga has been fun, but it's time for a change.

Blessings, friend.

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 15/08/2011 11:05 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 16# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 10:46 PM)

Guest,

I read the king james and find it to be the most sound bible ,considering what text the modern bible come from they are diluting the word each time a translation is put out . Nonsense. Even the new king james has had many words changed ,and have used the alex text in some of it . Again, nonsense. I also read the geneva 1560 bible which is good and the tynesdale new testament both are good to read . BUT walking with jesus in spirit and truth is the main thing what ever bible you read from. Which given your proclivities for the KJV is probably a lucky thing for you. By happenstance, have you been reading fictional works written by Mrs Gail Riplinger?

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 15/08/2011 11:43 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 17# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 10:58 PM)

Hi, Epi.

Thanks for the link on the Eucharist.  I began reading last night and am finding it very interesting. It is interesting, indeed. Mike put things so well in his blog, that I didn't feel the need to add my own tuppence in a post, here. I mainly use ESV, NLT and NIV but KJV is nice for a certain lyrical effect. Sure. I've heard from a progressive, in bible versions, Rev (who I'm sure will not be a lifelong one) that the 2011 NIV is a very good translation superior to the 1984 version. Well, your Revivalist friend is correct, the 'new' NIV is a marked improvement over the 'old' NIV (which I never really warmed to).

The NIV (1984) Reformation Bible and Study Bible are the ones I use as they have good footnotes. Which, I trust, you read critically. Also the Reformation Bible includes the various Catechisms at the back which I find interesting....and familiar. And spiritually nurturing ;)

How do you view the Holman Bible?  A good while ago I bought a Holman Apologetics Study Bible from Koorong which was out as a special and with an added 20% off in one of their sale days. It certainly has a different 'feel' to it than the other versions. I'm not a fan. At all. The Southern Baptists, I suppose, are better known for what they disagree with than the reverse, so it wasn't at all surprising that they produced the HCSB (largely in response to the swathe of 'inclusive language' versions then being published e.g. NLT, TNIV). What I really didn't like was that the Southern Baptists set about wielding their rather significant influence to have the TNIV removed from print, which, unfortunately, they succeeded in doing :(

The NRSV is also a very good translation, by the way. Whilst it might be accused of being a little 'loose' in some areas, it reads well and has a certain level of sophistication and dignitiy in its cadences.

Blessings,

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 16/08/2011 7:17 AM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

prezy
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 18# 



Rank:Poster Venti II

Posts:343
From: Scotland
Registered:06/02/2007

Reply To Guest
(Date Posted:15/08/2011 11:45 PM)

Reply to Guest

I read the king james and find it to be the most sound bible ,considering what text the modern bible come from they are diluting the word each time a translation is put out .Even the new king james has had many words changed ,and have used the alex text in some of it .I also read the geneva 1560 bible which is good and the tynesdale new testament both are good to read . BUT walking with jesus in spirit and truth is the main thing what ever bible you read from.


Most sound? probably the Bible that works best for revival heresy as it is much easier to use out of context because of its out of use words. The newer translations are in fact less diluted because their translaters had access to many more old texts, and much earlier texts than those of the KJV. Certainly walking with Jesus in spirit and truth are the main thing, and we can do this more according to God's truth by using the most accurate and understandable versions of His word. It is no doubt that His Holy Spirit has been responsible for the fantastic Bibles we have today.
usertype:3 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 19# 



Reply To Guest
(Date Posted:16/08/2011 5:46 AM)

Reply to Guest

When i was in the grc they went on alot about the king james ,so since i left i have reserched about how we got the king james and find it is the true word of God ,what do you think .

Hi all. I hope this is not too far off topic. I know this is a discussion on the most accurate translation of scriptual text but I was intrigued to see that a few of the posts also refer to some of the biblical texts as the true word of God. I presume that means they came from God the creator of all things himself and not just various peoples inspired writings and observations of God in their lives and what they feel and believe to be wonderful spiritual truths or phenomena.

So my questions is, what wording, form or effect must a text contain or manifest to verify beyond all doubt that it is the 'true word of God' and not the other? Please excuse my ignorance, although I am sure that God would have made the answer to this very simple so the common person could easily know if a scriptual text was of him and not that of a man. 

So if a text contains any or all of the following does it prove beyond doubt it is the Holy Word of God?

a) A person feels very inspired or comforted when they read or pray over it

b) It contains tried and true principles of good living and behaviour

c) It seems to come alive when you study, meditate or have faith or belief in its teachings

d) It contains a very accurate account of history or a nations past

e) A mathematical progression is woven throughout its passages

f) It contains prophecies of events that seem to come to pass at a future time

g) The passages seems to flow seamlesly even though written over a long period of time

h) A person observes good things happening in their life when they apply its teachings or bad things when they don't

i) A person has a seemingly supernatural experience after embracing the text such as speaking in tongues or physical healing

j) When you read the text you just know deep down that it is of God

Well quite obviously it is NONE of these points as they can easily be found or replicated in any inspired texts of man. That doesn't mean they might not have great value in a persons life if applied but certainly not as if they were the word of God himself. So what is the missing ingredient I have overlooked

As I said earlier, obviously the answer must be quite simple otherwise the common or unlearned person would never be able to know if they 'should' follow the text or not and therefore could not be held accountable to its teachings even if they were of God.

Of the countless wonderful spiritual texts throughout human civilisation up to now how can we clearly know which are of God and which can be taken with a grain of salt?

Your help is much appreciated.


usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 20# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:16/08/2011 6:30 AM)

Hello, Guest.

I hope this is not too far off topic. I know this is a discussion on the most accurate translation of scriptual text but I was intrigued to see that a few of the posts also refer to some of the biblical texts as the true word of God. I presume that means they came from God the creator of all things himself and not just various peoples inspired writings and observations of God in their lives and what they feel and believe to be wonderful spiritual truths or phenomena. 'Yes' and 'no'. The historic Christian position on Scripture might be summarised thus: 'God's Word in man's words' (so the implication of 2 Peter 1:21). Now Paul, himself, directly quoted certain noted Greek philosophers in his letters to certain of his wayward churches. These pagan quotations are recorded in the New Testament, but does the fact of their inclusion invest said quotations with the authority of 'Scripture'? Does their inclusion in the New Testament record imbue such guidance with the authority of the Lord himself? Personally, I wouldn't think so.

So my questions is, what wording, form or effect must a text contain or manifest to verify beyond all doubt that it is the 'true word of God' and not the other? Please excuse my ignorance, although I am sure that God would have made the answer to this very simple so the common person could easily know if a scriptual text was of him and not that of a man. Is this a backhanded compliment towards God, or simply a saucy attempt at 'cleverness'? ;) In any event the answer to your question is simple enough. The books of the Old Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to Israel and were validated by his prophets initially, and then ultimately, by Jesus Christ himself. The 27 books of the New Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to the Church and were validated by God's Holy Spirit initially, and ultimately, by Jesus Christ through his specially appointed representatives, the apostles.

So if a text contains any or all of the following does it prove beyond doubt it is the Holy Word of God?

a) A person feels very inspired or comforted when they read or pray over it. No.

b) It contains tried and true principles of good living and behaviour. No.

c) It seems to come alive when you study, meditate or have faith or belief in its teachings. No.

d) It contains a very accurate account of history or a nations past. No.

e) A mathematical progression is woven throughout its passages. No.

f) It contains prophecies of events that seem to come to pass at a future time. No.

g) The passages seems to flow seamlesly even though written over a long period of time. No.

h) A person observes good things happening in their life when they apply its teachings or bad things when they don't. No.

i) A person has a seemingly supernatural experience after embracing the text such as speaking in tongues or physical healing. No.

j) When you read the text you just know deep down that it is of God. No.

Well quite obviously it is NONE of these points as they can easily be found or replicated in any inspired texts of man. Absolutely (although I assume you meant to write, 'uninspired texts of man'). That doesn't mean they might not have great value in a persons life if applied but certainly not as if they were the word of God himself. So what is the missing ingredient I have overlooked. Please review my initial comments. The issue, as I see it, remains one of extrinsic versus instrinsic authority.

As I said earlier, obviously the answer must be quite simple otherwise the common or unlearned person would never be able to know if they 'should' follow the text or not and therefore could not be held accountable to its teachings even if they were of God. Might I ask? What gave you the idea that God's self-revelation was strictly an individual and self-consciously determined affair? The Ethiopian official's response to Philip seems pertinent to this point: 'How can I (understand what I read in Scripture) unless someone guides me?' (Acts 8:31 and note especially, v. 35). So too is Paul's advice in Romans 10:13 and 14: 'For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?'" One's eternity doesn't hinge on one's relationship with a scroll, but a Saviour. Consequently, the role the former plays with respect to the latter can be found in 2 Timothy 3:16: 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [why?] that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.' Scripture, then, seems to exist largely for pragmatic ends (i.e. orthopraxy is in focus just as much as is orthodoxy).

Of the countless wonderful spiritual texts throughout human civilisation up to now how can we clearly know which are of God and which can be taken with a grain of salt? Which of those 'countless wonderful spiritual texts' bears Christ's imprimatur? There lies your answer.

Your help is much appreciated. You're certainly welcome.

Blessings,

Ian



(Message edited by Didaktikon On 16/08/2011 7:11 AM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 21# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:16/08/2011 8:50 PM)

Reply to Didaktikon

Thank you Ian for taking the time to reply although I must say, thank god the common man these days has a dictionary to help understand half the stuff you write. Except I couldn't find instrinsic in the book but I gather you meant intrinsic. Don't worry, the penalty for spelling mistakes on judgement day is fairly minor. Probably only an extra day or two in hell.

I will draw upon your method of layout for reply;

Now Paul, himself, directly quoted certain noted Greek philosophers in his letters to certain of his wayward churches. These pagan quotations are recorded in the New Testament, but does the fact of their inclusion invest said quotations with the authority of 'Scripture'? Does their inclusion in the New Testament record imbue such guidance with the authority of the Lord himself? Personally, I wouldn't think so. So even though you personally don't put pagan quotations on the same level as a quote from God nevertheless I gather its ok for the 'true word of God' to also contain pagan quotations from which one may draw guidance. Or are you suggesting its ok to disregard the pagan portions of the bible assuming one is able to discern which is which. But then again what if God also inspired the writer of the pagan quotes? How would we know?

I take it the following was your main answer to my question as to how a person can know for sure if a text is the 'true Word of God' and not just a wise quotation from some pagan
  
The books of the Old Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to Israel and were validated by his prophets initially, and then ultimately, by Jesus Christ himself. The 27 books of the New Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to the Church and were validated by God's Holy Spirit initially, and ultimately, by Jesus Christ through his specially appointed representatives, the apostles. So I take this to mean that as long as a text contains a self-revelation to a nation of people and is initially validated by that peoples prophets and then validated by someone calling themselves Jesus Christ then that will prove beyond all doubt that it is the 'true Word of God'. Secondly, if a text claims to contain the self-revelation of God to a special group of people and is then backed up by the leader of a group and his specially appointed representatives then that will also be how you can know for sure that a text is the 'true Word of God'. Have I understood your answer correctly?


What gave you the idea that God's self-revelation was strictly an individual and self-consciously determined affair? The Ethiopian official's response to Philip seems pertinent to this point: 'How can I (understand what I read in Scripture) unless someone guides me?'  Are you saying, that in most cases, unless a person has guidance from a specially appointed or educated representative, the common person will not be able to read or understand for themselves the texts of God and most importantly will not be able to discern for themselves if the text is of God or not. In other words, most of us need to rely on someone else to confirm if a text is of God or not. If so, then that begs the question as to how the common man may know for sure between who they can rely on to be Gods true representative with this special skill set and those who just think they are Gods true representative. We would be back to square one again.

I am still intrigued though as to how Gods true representative determines which texts are the 'true Word of God' to expound upon and which ones aren't because I don't think your previous answer in its present form quite cuts it.


One's eternity doesn't hinge on one's relationship with a scroll, but a Saviour. Scripture, then, seems to exist largely for pragmatic ends  Nevertheless I imagine it would still be very important to know how to determine if the words of the scroll are really of God or not, particularly if you are using it to define or guide you in any spiritual relationship you think or know you experience.

The alternative of course is to admit that the scrolls may well be just mans best inspired guess at what God requires and be guided by that. In that light, maybe try them out and see which ones work best for you. You will still live a good life and experience what you believe to be a close relationship with your creator plus you will avoid any anger God may have towards you in attributing words to him (albeit wise) that were in fact written and thought up by a man. 


Which of those 'countless wonderful spiritual texts' bears Christ's imprimatur? There lies your answer. So are you saying the way to knowing for sure if a text is the 'true Word of God' is if a prominent spiritual leader gives their assent to the text. Ok, I think I've finally got it.



usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 22# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:16/08/2011 9:47 PM)

Hello again, Guest.

Thank you Ian for taking the time to reply although I must say, thank god the common man these days has a dictionary to help understand half the stuff you write. I consider such a part of the holistic educational service that I seek to provide here. If what I write forces you to consult a dictionary in one hand, and a Bible in the other, then I'm content that your horizons (both lexical and scriptural) are being expanded :) Except I couldn't find instrinsic in the book but I gather you meant intrinsic. You gathered, correctly. Don't worry, the penalty for spelling mistakes on judgement day is fairly minor. Probably only an extra day or two in hell. The occasional spelling mistake should prove my fallibility, once and for all. Still, I do marvel sometimes how certain people become overly excited when they discover such trifles in my writing. I suppose it offsets the frustration they must feel at not being able to refute the more substantive stuff ;)

Now Paul, himself, directly quoted certain noted Greek philosophers in his letters to certain of his wayward churches. These pagan quotations are recorded in the New Testament, but does the fact of their inclusion invest said quotations with the authority of 'Scripture'? Does their inclusion in the New Testament record imbue such guidance with the authority of the Lord himself? Personally, I wouldn't think so. So even though you personally don't put pagan quotations on the same level as a quote from God nevertheless I gather its ok for the 'true word of God' to also contain pagan quotations from which one may draw guidance. And why shouldn't this be the case? After all, Christian Scripture speaks to the human experience, as did the writings of our pagan poets. Or are you suggesting its ok to disregard the pagan portions of the bible assuming one is able to discern which is which. Let me point out that such is quite the implied 'reach', given what I actually wrote. It causes to me ask, what do you understand Scripture 'is', ontologically? But then again what if God also inspired the writer of the pagan quotes? How would we know? Why should we worry? Given the pagan poets in question never made claims to divine inspiration for their writings, I suppose the point itself is moot.

I take it the following was your main answer to my question as to how a person can know for sure if a text is the 'true Word of God' and not just a wise quotation from some pagan
 
The books of the Old Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to Israel and were validated by his prophets initially, and then ultimately, by Jesus Christ himself. The 27 books of the New Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to the Church and were validated by God's Holy Spirit initially, and ultimately, by Jesus Christ through his specially appointed representatives, the apostles. So I take this to mean that as long as a text contains a self-revelation to a nation of people and is initially validated by that peoples prophets and then validated by someone calling themselves Jesus Christ then that will prove beyond all doubt that it is the 'true Word of God'. Is this a question, or is it a statement? Secondly, if a text claims to contain the self-revelation of God to a special group of people and is then backed up by the leader of a group and his specially appointed representatives then that will also be how you can know for sure that a text is the 'true Word of God'. Have I understood your answer correctly? Clearly you haven't. This thread has as its basis, the fact of Christian Scripture. Now it seems that you wish to cast the net more widely, to consider the scriptures (and truth-claims) of non-Christian belief systems. To do so adequately would require an altogether different point-of-departure, as it is an altogether different discussion.

What gave you the idea that God's self-revelation was strictly an individual and self-consciously determined affair? The Ethiopian official's response to Philip seems pertinent to this point: 'How can I (understand what I read in Scripture) unless someone guides me?' Are you saying, that in most cases, unless a person has guidance from a specially appointed or educated representative, the common person will not be able to read or understand for themselves the texts of God and most importantly will not be able to discern for themselves if the text is of God or not. What I'm suggesting is that an indiviual hasn't the right to stand apart from the collective understanding of the Christian Church with respect to the proper meaning of Christian Scripture. In other words, most of us need to rely on someone else to confirm if a text is of God or not. Again, is this a question? Or is it a statement? If so, then that begs the question as to how the common man may know for sure between who they can rely on to be Gods true representative with this special skill set and those who just think they are Gods true representative. The issue that you highlight raises the valid question of 'who' speaks for God, which in a Christian context asks, what is a/the Christian Church (and who is invested with the responsibility of teaching her beliefs). As it is I've written on this subject, quite extensively, elsewhere on this forum. Consequently, I commend a serach of the archives to you. We would be back to square one again. Are we though? But why, given that you didn't enter this discussion from 'square one' to begin with? (your presuppositions, and the discussion itself, were predicated on a very specific context).

I am still intrigued though as to how Gods true representative determines which texts are the 'true Word of God' to expound upon and which ones aren't because I don't think your previous answer in its present form quite cuts it. Given that I didn't address this particular tangent, I'm not surprised. God's 'true representative' in the current discussion remains the Christian Church, given that it is the Church corporately who recognises the voice of her Master in the words of her Scripture.  

One's eternity doesn't hinge on one's relationship with a scroll, but a Saviour. Scripture, then, seems to exist largely for pragmatic ends. Nevertheless I imagine it would still be very important to know how to determine if the words of the scroll are really of God or not, particularly if you are using it to define or guide you in any spiritual relationship you think or know you experience. I think you've missed the fundamental point that I sought to make. As a Christian I submit to the authority, and follow the teachings of, Jesus Christ. Given that he was affirmed by God, and that in turn he affirmed his apostles, who then affirmed the New Testament writings, I can rest content in the fact of the Christian Bible's relevance in guiding my beliefs and practices.

The alternative of course is to admit that the scrolls may well be just mans best inspired guess at what God requires and be guided by that. In that light, maybe try them out and see which ones work best for you. You will still live a good life and experience what you believe to be a close relationship with your creator plus you will avoid any anger God may have towards you in attributing words to him (albeit wise) that were in fact written and thought up by a man. Of course. One is perfectly free to believe so, should one wish :)

Which of those 'countless wonderful spiritual texts' bears Christ's imprimatur? There lies your answer. So are you saying the way to knowing for sure if a text is the 'true Word of God' is if a prominent spiritual leader gives their assent to the text. Ok, I think I've finally got it. Apparently not. The context of my response was predicated on the understanding that we were discussing Christian Scripture. Which, itself, was predicated on the position that Jesus Christ serves as the final revelation of the One true God. If you wish to approach our discussion from a comparative religions basis, then please let me know as I'd be more than happy to accommodate you. Just not in this thread given that your inquiries are a distraction from its subject and theme.

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 17/08/2011 12:41 AM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 23# 



Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:17/08/2011 8:58 AM)

  G'day Ian,

 Illud iterum dicere potes  heh heh heh indeed I can!... I had to put my toga on for that one!

Well, I'm glad you persisted in jousting with me for all those years, then. If nothing else indeed I am persistent ... sometimes thick as a brick .... but persistent

The English won: Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! With the kind help of a 72 year old Prussian, who had the luxury every leader would like, a 2IC (Gneisenau) that agreed with his plan, obeyed orders, and was loyal to the cause. That's where Napoleon came unstuck with Ney and Grouchy off on tangents.

I'm hoping that we might be able to catch up in Melbourne, some time. I'd really like that. I have sold my business and retired, well sort of, I have transcribed a POW's Diary and appended the history of the war in context to him, as a labour of love (gratis) for his daughters and grandchildren and will be starting on a second one when I come back from a month and a half in Gallipoli and Europe. I now live 15 minutes South East from the city, so wherever you will be situated I reckon it will be easy to catch up.

Further blessings to you too friend

Old John
usertype:5 tt= 0
Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 24# 



RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:20/08/2011 3:25 AM)

kings james bible...something for all to look at God bless to all...tell me what u think ???????
usertype:5 tt= 0
Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 25# 



Reply To Guest
(Date Posted:20/08/2011 4:33 PM)




(Message edited by Mishnah On 20/08/2011 5:22 PM)
Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 26# 



Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:20/08/2011 5:21 PM)

 kings james bible...something for all to look at God bless to all...tell me what u think ???????
Your intentions are well meant but to dispel your misunderstandings, the King James Version IS NOT THE WITNESS !! to the actual Word of God as it was given in its autograph form. Instead you are reading the Autograph Witness through the eyes of an Elizabethan English speaking translator and it is the accuracy of that ancient translators view is all you have to rely on.

Let me share something else. About 15years ago, give or take a year or two, Ian and myself first got involved with this revivalist forum and at that time the CAI under ASW pounded the forum with the KJV version nonsense as well. But Ian displayed a skill which I cherished at that time and still do. Ian could read the the witness for himself and in the end the CAI chiefs ended up taking off with their tails tucked between their legs. And it was Ian's example back then that inspired me to go on and further my own undergrad study and acquire those skills for myself. Now I am heading towards concluding my own masters degree with the Australian College of Theology. Now I am not suggesting you do likewise but I would however, advise you to pay attention to Ian and what he has to say. Now getting back to your youtube posting, all the presenter is doing is giving you a rundown of the differing wordings that KJV translators have used to render meaning for certain passages but on the all important points of Greek syntax, nothing is at all referred to. See the real meaning of text is found in the Syntax of the Witness, which we know is the Greek New Testament.. So far on the first video, Syntax and Textual criticism has been ignored. On that basis alone, I won't waste anymore time watching any further videos. Instead I will spend my time referencing with the learned men of our time, such as Dr. Dan Wallace, and Dr. Bill Mounce who form the core of the best Greek exegete scholars available today.

Blessings

Eric  


(Message edited by Mishnah On 20/08/2011 5:32 PM)
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 27# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:20/08/2011 6:27 PM)

Guest,

Perhaps you didn't notice, but your 'Youtube' presentation was based on the presumption that the KJV is the 'correct standard'. Take away this naive (and incorrect assumption) and the entire argument for KJV superiority falls flat. Now you might be smitten by a translation that draws it's heritage from the Jacobean era, but I'm more interested in what the original Greek New Testament said. The original Greek New Testament and the KJV are not one and the same.

I collated the readings of about 100 Greek mss (dating from the 2nd through 5th centuries) dealing with sections of the Book of Acts, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews when I was doing research for my Master's degree. I then referenced the results against a representative range of English translations, including the KJV. Given its textual base, I wasn't at all surprised to discover that the KJV was the translation that deviated the most from the 'original' Greek text.

In short, of all the orthodox English Bible translations available, your preferred version is the least likely to represent what the original Greek New Testament writings contained. Deal with it.

Goose.

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 20/08/2011 11:50 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 28# 



RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:24/08/2011 12:57 PM)

Thanks for the feedback regarding the you tube video kings james bible 
usertype:5 tt= 0
Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 29# 



Reply To Guest
(Date Posted:26/08/2011 12:55 AM)

Reply to Guest

Thanks for the feedback regarding the you tube video kings james bible 

The King James Bible should be viewed within the historical context of the development and the historical evolution of the English Speaking - Language Bible and nothing more. The KJV, fwiw, did play an important part in its time toward that developement. But to gain an appreciation of the history of the English speaking/language Bible, you need to go back in time to John Wycliffe in the 14th Century and his translation from the only available Text that he had which was the Latin Vulgate and this was the first translation of an English Bible ever. But then down in history, you have William Tyndale who lived at the time of King HenryVIII and the Translation he produced from the Erasmus' Text Received  Greek apparatus with Latin etc.. And much of Tyndale' s work was  known as the Great Bible and this heavily influenced the Bishop's Bible and subsequently much of Tyndale's language structure became the basis of the language used in the KJV.  But then you have to move forward in history to a time when there were better trained scholars in Greek and Hebrew and so a much better revision came into being with the Revised Version  and so on. And the to more recent times with the Westcott Hort Theory and the birth of Textual criticism which brought about a much better researched and weighed Greek Text with over 5000 texts to weigh up from and so. And then thus we have come to the Nestle Aland text etc. etc. So what I am suggesting to you is that the KJV is really only a view of a piece of history that reflects the very early development of our English Bible and that is all it is. It is the Word of God but only as good as it could get with the very limited availability of only half a dozen manuscripts at that time in history..

Well for myself, I keep my old KJV and I have no intention of trash binning it because I have a TR in my library as well and it has some research value.. But my personal choice now is the English Standard version (ESV) which services me quite adequately.

Blessings

Eric
Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 30# 



RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:26/08/2011 4:00 AM)

Thankyou for the reply ...yes husband has no intention in thowing his kjv he also has william tynesdale book x strongs . He has just downloaded esword on the internet which he finds very useful.also john wycliffe book which he reads.... thankyou eric. 
usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 31# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:26/08/2011 6:13 PM)

Good morning, Eric.

A slight (but important) correction to your post: text critical work in the New Testament didn't begin with Drs Westcott and Hort as you inferred. Jerome was a text critic. So too was Origen. And, of course, Johann Bengel's text critical labours predated W & H by about 150 years.

Blessings,

Ian
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 32# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:27/08/2011 12:01 AM)

Reply to Didaktikon

Good morning, Eric.

A slight (but important) correction to your post: text critical work in the New Testament didn't begin with Drs Westcott and Hort as you inferred. Jerome was a text critic. So too was Origen. And, of course, Johann Bengel's text critical labours predated W & H by about 150 years.

Blessings,

Ian

Hello Ian,

 Golly Ian do understand that as a language, English did not exist except as a possible tribal dialect at the time of Origen  and/or Jerome. Gosh the Anglo Saxons were yet to invade the British Isles and the Normans didn't take over England until 1066 which I suppose is 600 years after Jerome lived. And the English we speak today started with conglomeration of the Anglo Saxons, the French Normans and spiced off with a serving of latin. But the point I was musing on is that the work that Drs Westcott and Hort undertook, have been a very major influence on the English Bible itself in its development to the wonderful translations such as the RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV that we have the privilege to enjoy today.

Blessings

Eric
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 33# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:27/08/2011 6:05 PM)

Good morning, Eric.

Thanks for taking the time to explain what you properly meant. However, my response wasn't directed at your general comments on the development of the English language Bible, but to this very specific statement: And the to more recent times with the Westcott Hort Theory and the birth of Textual criticism which brought about a much better researched and weighed Greek Text with over 5000 texts to weigh up from and so.

Blessings, dude.

Ian
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Ex-member
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 34# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:28/08/2011 10:20 PM)

Reply to Didaktikon

Good morning, Eric.

Thanks for taking the time to explain what you properly meant. However, my response wasn't directed at your general comments on the development of the English language Bible, but to this very specific statement: And the to more recent times with the Westcott Hort Theory and the birth of Textual criticism which brought about a much better researched and weighed Greek Text with over 5000 texts to weigh up from and so.

Blessings, dude.

Ian

Sorry Ianos,

The early efforts of getting an English Bible going is actually fascinating history. And you can't stop at just William Tyndale but there was also Myles Coverdale and how they would smuggle all their newly prints into England from Holland, only to have them confiscated and burned... But the prints themselves could be cranked up as the need arose and and new copies dispatched. Meanwhile King Henry efforts to father a son etc later led to the founding of the Anglican Church etc... and so to QE1 and then James 1 and so on and the politics with the Pope for disallowing an annulment of the marriage of Henry's wife no 1 (due to interference and threat from the King of Spain). A fascinating but very important part of history with many minor complications. Even with the gay shenanigans of James, an English Bible managed to come about. It would be nice sometime in my journey to compare a Coverdale with a KJV.. One day perhaps. And also compare a Geneva Bible too I suppose .. all in good time

Blessings
Eric 
Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 35# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:30/08/2011 6:54 PM)



I am still very intrigued to know how the common person, without the aid of a dictionary or a doctorate in theology, may simply know how to tell and prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, which of the ancient texts are directly of God (and therefore must be studied and obeyed to the letter)... and which of those ancient texts are just mans observations of history and of what he believes to be of God working in it and in his life (and therefore, albeit wise, may be followed with a large degree of discretion or scepticism)?

So far only Ian has attempted to offer an explanation which was:

The books of the Old Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to Israel and were validated by his prophets initially, and then ultimately, by Jesus Christ himself. The 27 books of the New Testament are the Word of God because they contain his self-revelation to the Church and were validated by God's Holy Spirit initially, and ultimately, by Jesus Christ through his specially appointed representatives, the apostles

He also gave this response

Which of those 'countless wonderful spiritual texts' bears Christ's imprimatur? There lies your answer

I also asked;
But then again what if God also inspired the writer of the pagan quotes? How would we know?

Ian answered;
Why should we worry? Given the pagan poets in question never made claims to divine inspiration for their writings, I suppose the point itself is moot. I took this to mean that so long as one claims their writings to have divine inspiration then that proves they are of God

While the above answers I guess may help someone determine which scriptures are of true 'Christian' or Hebrew origin they are totally devoid of any rational explanation as to how one may clearly know which of the ancient texts are truly of 'God the supreme commander and creator of all things'?

I would have thought that before choosing to follow or immerse ones self in a particular 'faith' it would be critical to determine the bits which were divine and those which are just a mans best guess of what God requires.

So does anyone have a simple, direct, rational answer to my above question... devoid of 'look how clever I am at coming up with big words' or 'watch how I can twist this question into something else entirely'?


PS: Ian, I only picked you up on your spelling mistake because you seem to constantly berate everyone else on this forum who makes the slightest gramatical error.    And god help those poor souls who dropped out of high school early and try posting their opinion here ... the vicious scorn and derision you heap on them puts any self important bully to shame. Well that's how it comes across to me.


usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 36# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:30/08/2011 7:22 PM)

Good morning, Guest.

I am still very intrigued to know how the common person, without the aid of a dictionary or a doctorate in theology, may simply know how to tell and prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, which of the ancient texts are directly of God (and therefore must be studied and obeyed to the letter)... and which of those ancient texts are just mans observations of history and of what he believes to be of God working in it and in his life (and therefore, albeit wise, may be followed with a large degree of discretion or scepticism)? There is an obvious answer, isn't there? The 'common person' who doesn't personally understand points of law, or the effects of disease, or the mechanical functioning of a car, normally seeks out someone who does, and asks them. And if such a one isn't happy with the first response, well, s/he can always get a second opinion! :)

(marginalia snipped)

While the above answers I guess may help someone determine which scriptures are of true 'Christian' or Hebrew origin they are totally devoid of any rational explanation as to how one may clearly know which of the ancient texts are truly of 'God the supreme commander and creator of all things'? As I recall I offered to discuss the various faith-based truth claims from a comparative religions perspective earlier, and the offer is still 'on the table'. But as a Christian my principle interest in responding thus far has been to providing a rational and cogent defence of the boundaries of my own faith's Scripture. So if you hoped me to be a 'fundamentalist' in my bibliology, then you're going to be sorely disappointed. If anything I am a 'pragmaticist' in such things.

I would have thought that before choosing to follow or immerse ones self in a particular 'faith' it would be critical to determine the bits which were divine and those which are just a mans best guess of what God requires. That would entirely depend upon whether the object of the 'faith' in question was a book, or a God. I've explained to you why Christians place confidence in the veracity of the Christian Scriptures, and the role that such Scripture plays in the mechanics of the Christian faith.

Of course, the Christian approach to such things really isn't all that dissimilar to the 'faith' that the average person places in the pronouncements of science, or medicine, or any other field of enquiry that one might think of. Acceptance inevitably depends on trust, which is itself, an outworking of faith. For me, faith in Jesus Christ directs and determines the trust that I place in the Christian Bible. Ergo, my faith in Scripture is derivative, not primary.

So does anyone have a simple, direct, rational answer to my above question... devoid of 'look how clever I am at coming up with big words' or 'watch how I can twist this question into something else entirely'? First, your question has been answered, simply, directly and rationally. Second, I don't need to be apologising for having a reasonably large working vocabulary, or for using expressions that are pertinent to the topic at hand. And, third, I haven't twisted any of your questions into 'something else entirely'. What I've done is to apply and employ fairly straightfoward and logical induction to assess the questions, and to follow them to where they inevitably led.

PS: Ian, I only picked you up on your spelling mistake because you seem to constantly berate everyone else on this forum who makes the slightest gramatical error.  'Constantly'? I think you'd have a very difficult time proving that assertion :)  And god help those poor souls who dropped out of high school early and try posting their opinion here ... the vicious scorn and derision you heap on them puts any self important bully to shame. Well that's how it comes across to me. I reserve my 'scorn' for idiots, and people can be such irrespective of the education they have received.

In conclusion, I'm simply one person who happens to share his views here. Anyone is perfectly free to disagree with anything that I say at any time (I certainly won't lose a moment's sleep over the fact). But it shouldn't be too much for me to expect demonstrations as to why I'm apparently misguided or wrong in what I assert. 'No, you're wrong!' just isn't adequate ;)

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 30/08/2011 8:11 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 37# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 1:34 AM)


========================================
I am still very intrigued to know how the common person, without the aid of a dictionary or a doctorate in theology, may simply know how to tell and prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, which of the ancient texts are directly of God (and therefore must be studied and obeyed to the letter)... and which of those ancient texts are just mans observations of history and of what he believes to be of God working in it and in his life (and therefore, albeit wise, may be followed with a large degree of discretion or scepticism)? There is an obvious answer, isn't there? The 'common person' who doesn't personally understand points of law, or the effects of disease, or the mechanical functioning of a car, normally seeks out someone who does, and asks them. And if such a one isn't happy with the first response, well, s/he can always get a second opinion! :)
================================================

Fair enough. And one would normally seek to determine if that person did indeed have the credentials/right/knowledge/correct information/skills etc to carry out the task they are claiming to represent.

Someone could inform me that 'laughing out loud in public' is against the laws of this land but I would probably want a good lawyer to be able to prove to me that that law actually existed in our constitution or court system. I wouldn't just take someones word for it. Furthermore, if I was guilty of the offence, I would want the lawyer to be able to clearly demonstrate how they know this law to be valid and true in this country... or was it just something that had been passed on through the centuries as heresay and everyone had just come to accept it as truth? 

Someone who is trained in christian theology could probably prove to me that the tenants of their faith clearly align with the ancient texts upon which they base their religion. They could then go on to teach me how to be a good follower of their Christian faith in strict adherence to their superior understanding of the original documents upon which their faith is based upon. No problem.

I can listen with an open mind to someone who trys to persuade me why they believe a God does indeed exist based on all the known scientific facts and even their own personal feelings on the matter. No problem.
  
What I do NOT understand is how someone can claim that the texts they are teaching are from God himself (as in the actual supreme creator of all things) and therefore must be followed or obeyed to the exclusion of any other teaching or personal thinking... as opposed to what is just a mans opinion as to what God may require. What credentials or proof are they able to produce that can back up this claim? In the absence of such why are so many just too dishonest in being able to admit that what they are preaching is simply their own observations or their best guess at what 'they think' God requires?

When they preach concepts such as 'hell', why isn't it always with the disclaimer that it is just what they 'believe' to be true or it is just an idea that is taught in ancient scripture or it is the basis of their faith (thereby giving a person the opportunity to either accept or reject the teaching as part of their personal belief)... but don't dare say that God himself declared it (thereby giving a weaker minded person no opportunity whatsoever to accept or reject the claim) unless thay can prove it... that would be blasphemous or at the very least maliciously fraudulent and deceptive. 

Nor do I think a person can excuse themselves from such grand deception on the grounds that to follow ones faith one must profess to believe the scriptures they are quoting are actually from God himself. Deceit is still deceit no matter how you dress it up. By all means persuade me as to what you think is a good way to follow God and live a spiritual life or what you believe is the most accurate interpretation of an ancient text but please don't dare lie to me by telling me it is actually from God himself or is what God himself requires unless you have concrete proof.

Of course, the Christian approach to such things really isn't all that dissimilar to the 'faith' that the average person places in the pronouncements of science, or medicine, or any other field of enquiry that one might think of. Acceptance inevitably depends on trust, which is itself, an outworking of faith. For me, faith in Jesus Christ directs and determines the trust that I place in the Christian Bible. Ergo, my faith in Scripture is derivative, not primary. So I guess this is sort of in line with one of the earlier points I mentioned that people often use to excuse their irrational belief that the scriptures are from God himself; c) It seems to come alive when you study, meditate or have faith or belief in its teachings. Although you did refute this at the time. 

I don't need to be apologising for having a reasonably large working vocabulary, or for using expressions that are pertinent to the topic at hand. Maybe, but you must be aware that it is socially unexceptable and in fact often down right rude to use words and phrases that are above the normal vocabulary of the general population you are addressing.

I reserve my 'scorn' for idiots, and people can be such irrespective of the education they have received. Fair enough, if they are indeed being idiots, but I still think it often comes across as borderline 'bullying'

Thanks anyway Ian for your amazingly swift reply. Don't you have a life outside the forum?  

I may be wrong but I think, reading between the lines, you were trying to tell me that much of Christian belief is indeed subjective. It's just that most Christians (or any group that claims God himself as their guide) are very reluctant to admit that to be the case, may be for fear that it will take away from the experience and faith they enjoy.

After all, 'knowing' that God is on your side and you are following His 'express' will and purpose is a pretty powerful drug. And also a very powerful tool to wield by those in supposed authority to use to keep their flock in line without question.






usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 38# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 2:53 AM)

Guest,

Fair enough. And one would normally seek to determine if that person did indeed have the credentials/right/knowledge/correct information/skills etc to carry out the task they are claiming to represent. Of course. In this instance I think you'd find that a majority of Christian ministers would likely support the statements that I've made regarding Christian Scripture. So please feel free to seek a second opinion, or a third, or as many others as you wish.

Someone could inform me that 'laughing out loud in public' is against the laws of this land but I would probably want a good lawyer to be able to prove to me that that law actually existed in our constitution or court system. I wouldn't just take someones word for it. Furthermore, if I was guilty of the offence, I would want the lawyer to be able to clearly demonstrate how they know this law to be valid and true in this country... or was it just something that had been passed on through the centuries as heresay and everyone had just come to accept it as truth? The facts are readily verifiable, to those prepared to search them out. For example, text critics have established the wording of the New Testament to approximately 95-98% certainty, as it was known, understood and used by the close of the first century. That's to within living memory of the events as they transpired. And just as passes with your example of a nation's laws, Christian Scripture has been committed to writing so that all may consult with it for themselves. The Law has lawyers for those who need assistance with interpretation, the Christian Church has teachers for those who need assistance interpreting Scripture :)

Someone who is trained in christian theology could probably prove to me that the tenants [that would be 'tenets'] of their faith clearly align with the ancient texts upon which they base their religion. They could then go on to teach me how to be a good follower of their Christian faith in strict adherence to their superior understanding of the original documents upon which their faith is based upon. No problem. I would agree.

I can listen with an open mind to someone who trys [sic] to persuade me why they believe a God does indeed exist based on all the known scientific facts and even their own personal feelings on the matter. No problem. No doubt.
 
What I do NOT understand is how someone can claim that the texts they are teaching are from God himself (as in the actual supreme creator of all things) and therefore must be followed or obeyed to the exclusion of any other teaching or personal thinking... as opposed to what is just a mans opinion as to what God may require. What credentials or proof are they able to produce that can back up this claim? In the absence of such why are so many just too dishonest in being able to admit that what they are preaching is simply their own observations or their best guess at what 'they think' God requires? First, who are the 'so many' that you clearly have in mind? Second, the Christian faith didn't simply appear a century or two ago. It has been a living tradition since AD 30, and has been a tradition which has passed on her teachings both verbally and in writing since the very beginning. Third, the Christian faith is founded on the life and teachings of Jesus as mediated through his immediate followers, the apostles. Fourth, Christianity remains a choice, not a compulsion. One can opt to believe or disbelieve as one sees fit, as one weighs the evidence. So just as physicists can't categorically prove that gravitons exist, despite the evidence that suggests they do, neither can Christians categorically prove that God is the ultimate source for Christian Scripture, despite the evidence that suggests that he is. Just as with the scientists it all boils down to the balance of probabilities, and what one is prepared to accept on 'faith'. Consider the following analogy, if you will: I'd suggest it unlikely that you possess the personal wherewithal needed to categorically prove that man set foot on the moon. Yet I don't doubt for a moment that you accept the truth of the claim. Similarly, I don't doubt for a moment that you defer to the physicists when discussions turn to physics. So why is it that you automatically follow a hermeneutic of trust with the former, but a hermeneutic of suspicion when it comes to historic and orthodox truth-claims about the mediate souce of Christian Scripture?

When they preach concepts such as 'hell', why isn't it always with the disclaimer that it is just what they 'believe' to be true or it is just an idea that is taught in ancient scripture or it is the basis of their faith (thereby giving a person the opportunity to either accept or reject the teaching as part of their personal belief)... but don't dare say that God himself declared it (thereby giving a weaker minded person no opportunity whatsoever to accept or reject the claim) unless thay can prove it... that would be blasphemous or at the very least maliciously fraudulent and deceptive. Nonsense. To use your example, should one represent what the Christian faith promotes about the subject of hell, then one could quite rightly refer to what Jesus himself taught on the matter. If Jesus is who he is claimed to be, then his pronouncements are authoritative. Consequently, when his followers pass such teachings on to others, then they have every right to appeal to the authority of God in doing so.

Nor do I think a person can excuse themselves from such grand deception on the grounds that to follow ones faith one must profess to believe the scriptures they are quoting are actually from God himself. Deceit is still deceit no matter how you dress it up. By all means persuade me as to what you think is a good way to follow God and live a spiritual life or what you believe is the most accurate interpretation of an ancient text but please don't dare lie to me by telling me it is actually from God himself or is what God himself requires unless you have concrete proof. Well, I would like to see you demonstrate that there is a lie, rather than simply the assumption of a lie. Go ahead :)

Of course, the Christian approach to such things really isn't all that dissimilar to the 'faith' that the average person places in the pronouncements of science, or medicine, or any other field of enquiry that one might think of. Acceptance inevitably depends on trust, which is itself, an outworking of faith. For me, faith in Jesus Christ directs and determines the trust that I place in the Christian Bible. Ergo, my faith in Scripture is derivative, not primary. So I guess this is sort of in line with one of the earlier points I mentioned that people often use to excuse their irrational belief that the scriptures are from God himself; c) It seems to come alive when you study, meditate or have faith or belief in its teachings. Although you did refute this at the time. Define 'irrational' for me, and then substantiate your use of the word in the context of your first sentence. Having done so please take a 'crack' at describing what's implied by the word 'proof'. 

I don't need to be apologising for having a reasonably large working vocabulary, or for using expressions that are pertinent to the topic at hand. Maybe, but you must be aware that it is socially unexceptable ['unacceptable'] and in fact often down right rude to use words and phrases that are above the normal vocabulary of the general population you are addressing. Or perhaps I credit the 'general population' with greater understanding than you apparently do.

I reserve my 'scorn' for idiots, and people can be such irrespective of the education they have received. Fair enough, if they are indeed being idiots, but I still think it often comes across as borderline 'bullying'. Which is naught but your personal opinion, of course. However, holding to a such opinion doesn't necessarily invest it with representing the actual truth of the matter. Given that you seem to be very keen for me to be providing 'proof' regarding this matter or that, I'd like to see you held to the same standard. So please, prove your assertion that my repartee on this forum should be construed as bullying :)

Thanks anyway Ian for your amazingly swift reply. Don't you have a life outside the forum? You're welcome, and a quite fulfilled one, actually. Responding to questions such as yours on this forum is neither overly taxing on my time, my resources nor my faculties.

I may be wrong but I think, reading between the lines, you were trying to tell me that much of Christian belief is indeed subjective. It's just that most Christians (or any group that claims God himself as their guide) are very reluctant to admit that to be the case, may be for fear that it will take away from the experience and faith they enjoy. First, I'd like to see you substantiate the statement that 'most' Christians believe as you claim. I warrant it probable that I know very many more Christians than you do, and such as you've claimed hasn't been my experience. Next, all belief, whether Christian or otherwise, is grasped subjectively. The trick is in determining whether or not there is an adequate objective basis for holding to said beliefs. No doubt many take things largely on blind faith; however, there are also many who are a little more like me ;)

After all, 'knowing' that God is on your side and you are following His 'express' will and purpose is a pretty powerful drug. And also a very powerful tool to wield by those in supposed authority to use to keep their flock in line without question. I don't doubt it. The fawning of the general populace for the dicatates of the scientific academy demonstrates that such isn't true just of religion (as popularly understood). What compels me, however, is Jesus' claim that, 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' Christianity, to me, brings liberation. Clearly you're of the opinion that it brings bondage instead.

Ian 

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 31/08/2011 3:53 AM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 39# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 5:59 AM)



Once again thank you for your reply and the spelling lesson. There is much I could respond to but I know we will just start going around in circles (if not already).

Except to reply to this comment
Christianity, to me, brings liberation. Clearly you're of the opinion that it brings bondage instead. Actually quite the opposite. I love the Christian message and credit it almost exclusively for the joy, peace and freedom I feel I experience almost every day. I credit it for helping me get through some tough times and for the success I have enjoyed in many areas of my life. It is always the rock I turn to and find stability on. The only time I have felt bondage with the Christian message and scripture is in the point I brought up in my post - claiming it is directly from God. It never felt right, in fact almost blasphemous, to claim it was of God. Plus I observed how many preachers controlled their subjects by using this claim. 

Obviously my intention was not to convince you (clearly that would be impossible  ) but to just put forward an alternate view.

Oh and rather than me proving that you are a 'bully' what about we just take a poll on it. Surely if enough people show they believe in something then that will automatically make it true. Who knows, in milleniums to come it may turn up as a passage in an ancient text and be used to teach and correct followers of the 'true word of god' 



usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 40# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 6:23 AM)

Guest,

Once again thank you for your reply and the spelling lesson. There is much I could respond to but I know we will just start going around in circles (if not already). Again, you're welcome, and I suppose the chances for the latter eventuality would entirely depend on how willing you were to having your views tested, and shaped, by Scripture :)

Except to reply to this comment: Christianity, to me, brings liberation. Clearly you're of the opinion that it brings bondage instead. Actually quite the opposite. I love the Christian message and credit it almost exclusively for the joy, peace and freedom I feel I experience almost every day. I credit it for helping me get through some tough times and for the success I have enjoyed in many areas of my life. It is always the rock I turn to and find stability on. The only time I have felt bondage with the Christian message and scripture is in the point I brought up in my post - claiming it is directly from God. It never felt right, in fact almost blasphemous, to claim it was of God. Plus I observed how many preachers controlled their subjects by using this claim. First, let me expressed how surprised I am! In your earlier posts you've been going on about the importance of objective truth, and yet here you are 'fessing up that you can't accept the orthodox position on Scripture for no other reason that it doesn't subjectively 'feel' right!

Obviously my intention was not to convince you (clearly that would be impossible) but to just put forward an alternate view. I'm open to being convinced, all that's needed is for you to marshall a convincing argument. Of course, alternate views are largely pointless if they fail to represent matters as they really are (abstraction for its own sake is simply an exercise in absurdity).  

Oh and rather than me proving that you are a 'bully' what about we just take a poll on it. Darn, and here was me hoping that you might actually take a shot at 'practicing what you preach' by holding yourself to the same standard that you demand of others. Surely if enough people show they believe in something then that will automatically make it true. 'Surely'? Why? Who knows, in milleniums to come it may turn up as a passage in an ancient text and be used to teach and correct followers of the 'true word of god'. Potentially, but then again such a hypothetical text would still find itself butting heads with God's special revelation inscripturated ;) 

Finally, I've noticed over the course of our conversation that you've been somewhat selective in responding to the range of points that I've raised in my rejoinders. I get the impression that what you ignore says almost as much about your philosophies as what you discuss.

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 31/08/2011 6:45 AM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 41# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 8:16 AM)



Despite my better judgement in responding here's an example of going around in circles :o)

Once again thank you for your reply and the spelling lesson. There is much I could respond to but I know we will just start going around in circles (if not already). Again, you're welcome, and I suppose the chances for the latter eventuality would entirely depend on how willing you were to having your views tested, and shaped, by Scripture :) The only reason we would continue to go round in circles is because of your pointless persistance to use Scripture as a point of reference before it is shown and proven to be the actual word of God himself. Unless one can prove otherwise, the god of the Bible can only be a man made god... not the true and living God of the Universe. Otherwise He only exists in text in some religious or mythical sense which I have no real interest in discussing.

First, I'm surprised! In your earlier post you seemed to want to discredit the apprehension of faith via 'feelings' and 'emotions'; yet here you are 'fessing up that you can't accept the orthodox position on Scripture for no other reason that it doesn't 'feel' right! I have no problem what so ever on acting on faith via 'feelings' or emotion so long as one is honest enough to acknowledge that that is what they are doing... using a natural human phenomena to produce a result or an experience. It didn't 'feel' right to accept the orthodox position on scripture because it was claiming something to be of 'God' when it clearly wasn't. Nevertheless my 'feeling' was based on critical thinking and logical reasoning.

Second, given that Jesus Christ is God, and that his is the Christian message which is enshrined as Christian Scripture, I fail to see how your dilemma is in any sense logical. Again you are referring to texts (Jesus Christ is God) that are the claims and writings of men... not those proven to be of God himself. As mentioned before it is pointless discussing the contents of scripture as if they are the word of God until the contents are first and foremost verified beyond all doubt to be so. Until that is established anything else is a moot point or at best the realm of myth and man made god religion.

Anyway, the Christian message is just as powerful and valid whether God instigated it or not. Just look at how powerful it is in your life even though it is entirely man made.


Darn, and here was me hoping that you might actually take a shot at 'practicing what you preach', by holding yourself to the same standard that you demand of others. Although I know you are just being facetious I will nevertheless point out that there is a world of difference between me claiming someone is a bully and me claiming I hold or preach the actual word of God when in fact it just the word of man and his opinion of God. The gravity, the seriousness, the weight and responsibility of the latter claim is enormous

Surely if enough people show they believe in something then that will automatically make it true. 'Surely'? Why? This time it was me being fecetious

Potentially, but then again such a hypothetical text would still find itself butting heads with God's special revelation inscripturated ;)  Why? Particularly when they are both from the same source... Man!

Finally, I've noticed over the course of our conversation that you've been somewhat selective in responding to the range of points that I've raised in my rejoinders. I get the impression that what you ignore says almost as much about your philosophies as what you discuss  My apologies, but I was just taking a leaf out of your book and tending to ignore the comments I found to be idiotic, irrational or without basis of rational thought. Such passages did not warrant my response only my contempt. Oops... does that make me a 'bully'? Sorry, no offence meant.


usertype:5 tt= 0
Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 42# 



Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 8:33 AM)

Damn it Ian, how can I properly respond to your posts if you keep editing them. A wise man of long ago once claimed that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways  :o)
usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 43# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 5:23 PM)

Guest,

Damn it Ian, how can I properly respond to your posts if you keep editing them. A wise man of long ago once claimed that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways :o) When I edit my posts I do so for readability rather than content, so I don't think your "wise man's quote" really applies. In any case, such editing invariably takes place soon after the original post, so I doubt it presents too much of an inconvenience (given there was about two hours of elapsed time between my editing and your response, what's the problem?) :)

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 31/08/2011 6:03 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 44# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 5:53 PM)

Guest,

Despite my better judgement in responding here's an example of going around in circles :o)

Once again thank you for your reply and the spelling lesson. There is much I could respond to but I know we will just start going around in circles (if not already). Again, you're welcome, and I suppose the chances for the latter eventuality would entirely depend on how willing you were to having your views tested, and shaped, by Scripture :) The only reason we would continue to go round in circles is because of your pointless persistance to use Scripture as a point of reference before it is shown and proven to be the actual word of God himself. Unless one can prove otherwise, the god of the Bible can only be a man made god... not the true and living God of the Universe. Otherwise He only exists in text in some religious or mythical sense which I have no real interest in discussing. Au contraire, my friend. At the very beginning of this discussion I introduced the following logic chain: (1) Jesus is God; (2) Jesus affirmed the Old Testament as being God's Word; (3) Jesus appointed and empowered apostles to represent him; (4) the apostles committed Jesus' teaching to writing; (5) Jesus affirmed the New Testament as being God's Word. The basis of my position, then, has been the claim, argumentum ad verecundium. Consequently, any charge that you wish to make of argumentum petitio principii, must first disprove my original point of depature: that Jesus is God.

First, I'm surprised! In your earlier post you seemed to want to discredit the apprehension of faith via 'feelings' and 'emotions'; yet here you are 'fessing up that you can't accept the orthodox position on Scripture for no other reason that it doesn't 'feel' right! I have no problem what so ever on acting on faith via 'feelings' or emotion so long as one is honest enough to acknowledge that that is what they are doing... using a natural human phenomena to produce a result or an experience. It didn't 'feel' right to accept the orthodox position on scripture because it was claiming something to be of 'God' when it clearly wasn't. Nevertheless my 'feeling' was based on critical thinking and logical reasoning. Well then, let's see you prove the untested thesis that states the orthodox position that Scripture is the mediate work of God, 'clearly' isn't. Doing so would demonstrate your capacity (rather than just your claim) for critical thinking and logical reasoning.

Second, given that Jesus Christ is God, and that his is the Christian message which is enshrined as Christian Scripture, I fail to see how your dilemma is in any sense logical. Again you are referring to texts (Jesus Christ is God) that are the claims and writings of men... not those proven to be of God himself. As mentioned before it is pointless discussing the contents of scripture as if they are the word of God until the contents are first and foremost verified beyond all doubt to be so. Until that is established anything else is a moot point or at best the realm of myth and man made god religion. Why? The standard of truth that applies to history, science and law is: 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Consequently, the onus is on you having to disprove that 'reasonable-ness' exists. Have at it!

Anyway, the Christian message is just as powerful and valid whether God instigated it or not. Just look at how powerful it is in your life even though it is entirely man made. If such be true, then your previous claim to Christian conviction is as false as your central thesis (think about it) ;)

Darn, and here was me hoping that you might actually take a shot at 'practicing what you preach', by holding yourself to the same standard that you demand of others. Although I know you are just being facetious I will nevertheless point out that there is a world of difference between me claiming someone is a bully and me claiming I hold or preach the actual word of God when in fact it just the word of man and his opinion of God. The gravity, the seriousness, the weight and responsibility of the latter claim is enormous. The implications are certainly different; however, the principle that underpins the two arguments is exactly the same.

Surely if enough people show they believe in something then that will automatically make it true. 'Surely'? Why? This time it was me being fecetious. I never would've guessed :P  Potentially, but then again such a hypothetical text would still find itself butting heads with God's special revelation inscripturated ;)  Why? Particularly when they are both from the same source... Man! But are they? I've seen personal opinion aplenty to this effect from you, but not a shred of proof up to this point. Ergo I repeat: "Darn, and here was me hoping that you might actually take a shot at 'practicing what you preach', by holding yourself to the same standard that you demand of others."

Finally, I've noticed over the course of our conversation that you've been somewhat selective in responding to the range of points that I've raised in my rejoinders. I get the impression that what you ignore says almost as much about your philosophies as what you discuss.  My apologies, but I was just taking a leaf out of your book and tending to ignore the comments I found to be idiotic, irrational or without basis of rational thought. Such passages did not warrant my response only my contempt. Oops... does that make me a 'bully'? Sorry, no offence meant. And none taken :) The difference, of course, is that I actually do respond to those points that I find 'idiotic, irrational or without basis in rational thought', and often in considerable detail. You?

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 31/08/2011 6:40 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 45# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 6:50 PM)


Nice reply. Thank you. And no I don't really think all of your comments are idiotic probably more naive.

Groan. Once again you have started your argument with an unproven logic chain that has no basis in logic.

Au contraire, my friend. At the very beginning of this discussion I introduced the following logic chain: (1) Jesus is God; You see, right there you have lost me. Blatantly stating a man made claim as if it were fact. The rest of the so called logic chain makes absolutely no sense until this point is verified. And you even have the gall to suggest that God himself was behind it. You're on very dangerous ground there... I'd be watching out for lightening bolts from heaven if I believed in Divine retribution

Consequently, any charge that you wish to make of argumentum petitio principii, must first disprove my original point of depature: that Jesus is God.
Now just wait a moment. I'm not the one claiming the easter bunny is real. It is up to the person who makes the claim to prove it with real facts not based on hearsay, hazy recollections or myth, stories and legend. I have yet to see even any 'reasonable' verifiable facts that support your claim. So until that is done I am unable to proceed any futher with your line of reasoning.

Anyway, out of respect, I will leave the last word to you by using one of your quotes;

Just as with the scientists it all boils down to the balance of probabilities, and what one is prepared to accept on 'faith'.



usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 46# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 7:27 PM)

Guest,

Nice reply. Thank you. And no I don't really think all of your comments are idiotic probably more naive. It's been a very long time since anyone has suggested to me that I'm 'naive', so I appreciate you making me feel 'young' again :)

Groan. Once again you have started your argument with an unproven logic chain that has no basis in logic. Really? I pride myself on knowing a thing or two about formal logic, so I'd be very thankful if you would point out to me where you believe I've erred.

Au contraire, my friend. At the very beginning of this discussion I introduced the following logic chain: (1) Jesus is God; You see, right there you have lost me. Blatantly stating a man made claim as if it were fact. The rest of the so called logic chain makes absolutely no sense until this point is verified. And you even have the gall to suggest that God himself was behind it. You're on very dangerous ground there... I'd be watching out for lightening bolts from heaven if I believed in Divine retribution. Surely you know that any logical postulation must begin with a premise? And, of course, who says the premise that Jesus is God is a 'man-made' claim? ;)

Consequently, any charge that you wish to make of argumentum petitio principii, must first disprove my original point of depature: that Jesus is God. Now just wait a moment. I'm not the one claiming the easter bunny is real. It is up to the person who makes the claim to prove it with real facts not based on hearsay, hazy recollections or myth, stories and legend. Actually, 'no' it isn't (read a little philosophy, law and science if you will). I have yet to see even any 'reasonable' verifiable facts that support your claim. So until that is done I am unable to proceed any futher with your line of reasoning. Two points: first, you have yet to tackle the base claim that Jesus is God given that this is primary and every other argument in our conversation thus far has been derivative. Second, the chain-of-reasoning that I've applied is functionally separate to the premise and the outcome which it tests. Given that you've claimed to knowing 'stuff' about logic, you should already understand this (Google 'logical form' if you need to 'brush up'). Consequently, I'd like for you to prove how and why my logic chain is apparently 'illogical' (given that this really is no more complex than first year university-level epistemology, have at it!)

Anyway, out of respect, I will leave the last word to you by using one of your quotes: Just as with the scientists it all boils down to the balance of probabilities, and what one is prepared to accept on 'faith'. Indeed :)

Ian

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 31/08/2011 9:09 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 47# 



Re:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 8:04 PM)

Oh and rather than me proving that you are a 'bully' what about we just take a poll on it. Darn, and here was me hoping that you might actually take a shot at 'practicing what you preach' by holding yourself to the same standard that you demand of others

Well of course Ian is a bully, but he will never accept that until he finds a verse in the bible that tells him so directly.
usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 48# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 9:03 PM)

Galien,

Well of course Ian is a bully, but he will never accept that until he finds a verse in the bible that tells him so directly. *Yawn*.

Goose.

Ian
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Guest
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 49# 



Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 10:08 PM)

Reply to Didaktikon

Galien,

Well of course Ian is a bully, but he will never accept that until he finds a verse in the bible that tells him so directly. *Yawn*.

Goose.

Ian

Bout as interesting as your bullying.

Bully

Galien
usertype:5 tt= 0
Didaktikon
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 50# 



Rank:Forum Oracle

Posts:2958
From: Australia
Registered:29/08/2007

RE:The king james bible
(Date Posted:31/08/2011 10:22 PM)

Galien,

I note that you still haven't overcome your unhealthy emotional fixation with me. Given that you're incapable of adding to any meaningful discussion that takes place here; further, that your sole interest and focus is towards me as a person; perhaps you should simply toodle-oo off now and save yourself additional embarrassment?

Bully. You claiming something to be the case, over-and-over, doesn't make it true. For example, you vocally claimed to being a Christian on this forum for almost two years, and yet, we all know how that panned out.

Goose.

Ian  

(Message edited by Didaktikon On 31/08/2011 10:57 PM)
usertype:2 tt= 0

--------------------------------------------------------------
email: didaktikon@gmail.com

<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 2    
New Topic New Poll
Sign Up | Create | About Us | SiteMap | Features | Forums | Show Off | Faq | Help
Copyright © 2000-2018 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.

Get cheapest China Wholesale,  China Wholesale Supplier,  SilkChain 丝链to be a retailer is easy now.
LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY
LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY LUFFY