@KunleOshob,

I asked you to check and confirm the vacant assertion from justcool; but before you come back with another excuse, here's something to help you for starters:

KunleOshob:

Is that not so very obvious the man has proved this by showing us several other versions that used the word "you" it was only KJV that omitted it and we already know that KJV as numerous translation errors

This is how that verse reads from where all those other "versions" derived their translations -

         John 5:39

           ερευνατε τας γραφας οτι υμεις δοκειτε εν αυταις ζωην
         αιωνιον εχειν και εκειναι εισιν αι μαρτυρουσαι περι εμου

You're entitled to keep making this vacant assertion against the KJV "omitting/omit/omitted" the word "you" at the beginning of that verse. Please show us where in that verse you see YOU at the beginning of that verse! Did you even notice that the Douay-Rheims Bible justcool also quoted did not have that word ('you') at the beginning of that verse? Did you check?

What has happened is that the other versions cited by justcool to arrive at his ideas did just the opposite: they inserted the word "you" at the beginning of that verse!  Are you happy with their own insertions while pointing accusing fingers against the KJV? Let me know sir, thank you.

@Pilgrim.1
I see you want to go into a theological debate with me, this i would not concede to. And what are you planning to achieve by posting the greek writings which you assume i can't read. I assume you can't read it as well. Any way to cut the long story of insertion and omission, the basic problem with the kJV is the word for word translation method applied. the problem with word for word translation is is that meaning is sometimes lost becos of the way various languages use different words. Try a word for word tranlstion from english to yoruba in a sentense and see how much sense it makes. This error in KJV was corrected in later translations (incuding the New KJV) and a more appropriate meaning for meaning translation method was applied. Thus better accuracy and understanding was achieved. I am quite sure you are aware of this but for the purpose of "winning"argument you would grab at the straws of omission and insertion.
Personalyy i don't know why a lot of churches still prefer to use this poor and confusing translation. Are they trying to confuse/mis-interprete scripture to thier congregation?? If so KJV would be the ldeal version to use.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

@Pilgrim.1
I see you want to go into a theological debate with me, this i would not concede to. And what are you planning to achieve by posting the greek writings which you assume i can't read. I assume you can't read it as well.

In the first place, you are too presumptuous for your own good. I'm least interested in winning any argument, and if I wanted a theological debate, I would pick someone who was well qualified and not a vacantly assertive person who is happy to applaud every lie under the sun that he has never for once checked out! That is why when I read these false allegations that you and your folks have been too happy to dribble through the back door, I have often come back to bleach them.

KunleOshob:

Any way to cut the long story of insertion and omission, the basic problem with the kJV is the word for word translation method applied. the problem with word for word translation is is that meaning is sometimes lost because of the way various languages use different words. Try a word for word tranlstion from english to yoruba in a sentense and see how much sense it makes. This error in KJV was corrected in later translations (incuding the New KJV) and a more appropriate meaning for meaning translation method was applied. Thus better accuracy and understanding was achieved. I am quite sure you are aware of this but for the purpose of "winning"argument you would grab at the straws of omission and insertion.
Personalyy i don't know why a lot of churches still prefer to use this poor and confusing translation. Are they trying to confuse/mis-interprete scripture to their congregation?? If so KJV would be the ldeal version to use.

Look my dear sir, I am very well aware of the various translation methods adopted by so many versions and translations of the Bible (and other documents including the Gnostic Gospels and the texts early Greek philosophers). Please consult any one of these documents and you will see too many different readings in translations and versions. Many people often have a problem with Biblical texts while never making this same noise about the documents of early philosophers that were translated with as many "errors" in translations.

However, rather than be bogged down with methods of translations or what nots, it was a very serious problem for one to accuse the KJV of omissions where they have never once checked out what they are saying. Why should Christians perpetuate these allegations applauding them? Every time I hear or read these allegations of "omissions" and "insertions", one question I have always asked the accuser is this: 'have you personally checked it out yourself or you're just singing that anthem by rote?' Often is the case that it turns out they have never checked it out! Then for crying out loud, why should these fellows applaud their misleading ideas and become unhappy when shown to be untenable?

Meanwhile, although I'm not a polyglot, Greek is one of the languages I speak and quite well understand. And as soon as justcool made that assertion in allegation that the KJV "omitted" that word at the beginning of that verse, the first thing I did was to re-check to see if I had got it wrong, before coming on to reply to that misleading assumption. I would never even try to say a word thereto if I had not first checked. That is why I have often called your attention to first go and check all things before applauding anyone about anything, lest you run the risk of applauding a false assertion.

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob,

In the first place, you are too presumptuous for your own good. I'm least interested in winning any argument, and if I wanted a theological debate, I would pick someone who was well qualified and not a vacantly assertive person who is happy to applaud every lie under the sun that he has never for once checked out! That is why when I read these false allegations that you and your folks have been too happy to dribble through the back door, I have often come back to bleach them.

Could you please point out exactly what it is that Justcool or myself said that is false and in the process let us also know the correct position of things with facts to back it up

pilgrim.1:

That is why I have often called your attention to first go and check all things before applauding anyone about anything, lest you run the risk of applauding a false assertion.

There is nothing i have applauded here that i have not confirmed to be true. I am sure you are quite aware i have done quite a bit of research on KJV even before we began debating it on this thread. I am also a good student of bible history and everything Justcool wrote i can attest to it that he is 100% correct. I know the truth can sometimes be bitter, but then it must be told. There is no point in distorting facts to preserve the inegrity of the bible God did not give to us in the first instance. My christianity is Spirit based like that of the early christians not on any man made object or Idol whichcan at best be described as a tool to aid our christian lives.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

Could you please point out exactly what it is that Justcool or myself said that is false and in the process let us also know the correct position of things with facts to back it up

I have done so already. Again I outlined it and gave the facts by quoting the text from its manuscript from which those versions derived their translations.

KunleOshob:

There is nothing i have applauded here that i have not confirmed to be true.

In other words, you are confirming that the "omission" of 'you' at beginning of John 5:39 is true in the KJV? And what have you said about the fact that the other versions only inserted that word there?

KunleOshob:

I am sure you are quite aware i have done quite a bit of research on KJV even before we began debating it on this thread.

You have been asserting it and yet not living up to it. Anyone can make assertions breezily as you do - that is why I only posted the Greek and let's see you give it your best shot and stop complaining about this vacant "research".

KunleOshob:

I am also a good student of bible history and everything Justcool wrote i can attest to it that he is 100% correct.

No worries, I have waited long enough for you guys to show me where you find "you" as an omitted in the verse as posted clearly here. Na only 100%? Why then have you been complaining and whinging when asked to show what that verse says?

KunleOshob:

I know the truth can sometimes be bitter, but then it must be told.

That's what I have done, dear sir. It may be bitter and that is why you have been complaining about the inconvenient truth on a single verse thus far.

KunleOshob:

There is no point in distorting facts to preserve the inegrity of the bible

Very true, which is the whole point in asking that you and your adulators refrain from this perversive assertions that you have never taken the steps to clarify. The only thing we read thus far is whinging.

KunleOshob:

God did not give to us in the first instance. My christianity is Spirit based like that of the early christians not on any man made object or Idol whichcan at best be described as a tool to aid our christian lives.

So what is so difficult and 'idol' about your own spirituality that up until now has proved its inability to provide us with your own canon?

Dear KunleOshob,

Thus far, you only provide me with substance to waste your complaints. There is nothing strange in what I have been pointing out in yours. Talk about "research", you make allusion to that as if others are oblivious or ignorant of the same "research". Translation 'errors' occur in text, but that is not the same thing as complaining that some passages should not be in the Bible. These are two very different things.

Another thing is that you often are too given to applaud what you have never once verified for yourself. Since you assume that other Christians are "indoctrinated" and thus are wallowing in "ignorance", that is why you seem to be on the look out for only those assertions that please your agenda - never once trying to see reason in what others may have to say. Never. And when they point out certain things to you, it often displeases you to even consider what they might have noted.

Third, given all things and even granting that your own spirituality is the more correct, why is it taking you forever to just provide us with your own canon? I am aware of the allegation of 300,000 "errors" that people make against the KJV (some even say it is more - about 10,000 in the OT and 300,000 in the NT = 310,000 together); but when asked if they could just walk us through every single one of those calculated "errors", they take offence and would not even calm down to consider what others may be asking. To these folks, anyone who reads any version of the Bible is a complete slowpoke and should be treated as such, with nothing relevant that could be heard from them! I have met these people so many times, that there is nothing you have presented that deviates from their attitude.

So, initially I had wanted to just stay out altogether until occasion brings me back; but for someone to assert obviously vacant ideas that are not true and hopes to get away with it, I would rather seek to call their attention to it. If they are not satisfied, I invite them to look at the manuscripts. Soem are sincere enough to do so and see where they were misled; others are too heady to even consider anything. The KJV is "evil" according to them; but these same fellows fail to realize that the versions they quote have done too many INSERTIONS that they cannot defend from any manuscripts - yet, they are very happy to quote and emphasise these other versions while castigating the KJV.

Like I said, almost every version that I have had the privilege to consider have their own problems - it is not perculiar to only the KJV. Any version you use has this very problem and some have them in greater degree than they accuse against the KJV! That is something they never consider. But if you ask them to step up and show their defence of why they favour those other versions, they quickly assume that you're attacking them, you're "ignorant", you're "selfish and loveless", or you're just simply a fanatic! No, I'm not referring to only what I have read in this thread, that is why I have noted that this has been my experience with those I have met face to face in discussing this matter!

I have nothing against you or anyone; that is why every assertion you make, the one question I offer you is to mirror that assertion against your inner convictions and see for yourself if the Holy Spirit is bearing witness to such false and unfair allegations - allegations that we all know are indefensible in the face of hard facts from the manuscripts themselves. Does the Spirit of God bear witness in your heart to keep making those false allegations which you cannot defend?

Well, dear sir, it has been my few bits to help you see these matters. Perhaps what has happened so far is a confirmation that when someone has made up their mind to refuse to see simple facts, anything and everything that they cannot defend will delight them. Best regards if that is what you had always wanted to confirm above all.

I can't tell whether I'm amused or irritated.  Is it not a known fact that in many languages in the conjugation of verbs the person is often left out.  For instance in spanish if I want to say 'I'm eating payela' I don't have to say Yo Como Payela.  All I have to say is 'Como Payela'.  'NO tengo dinero' means I don't have any money (A very useful phrase to know if you ever go to South America).  There is no person in 'no tengo dinero'.  Tengo is not just have, but I Have.
As a result in many such languages the imperative (command) can get mixed up with the present indicative.  'Vive' can be a command to someone to live somewhere.  On the other hand Vive can also mean 'She lives .  . . ' somewhere.  

As it happens this is the case with the greek language.  As pilgrim.1 tells us that she has studied greek I presume that she is well aware of this in the conjugation of greek verbs.  In which case I can only assume that she has been willfully deceptive and mendacious.

This word ερευνατε (Ereunate) can be translated as[b] you search[/b] (present indicative) or as a command Search.  Which is it?

Well let us consider the context in which we find it.  The statement 'Ereunate the scriptures' is followed by a reason why.  '- for in them you think that you have eternal life'.  When someone does an action such as search the scriptures there is often a reason for it.  That reason is based on a presumption or belief that they have.  They search the scriptures because they think that therein lies eternal life.  This following phrase tells us that Jesus is say 'You search . . .'.  If it was a command it sounds wierd.  It should rather be  "Search the scriptures because I Say that therein you have eternal life".    not 'I'm telling you to search the scripture because YOU THINK that therein you have eternal life'.  because you think' tells me that Jesus is referring to an action that originates from their own impulses and not a command from Jesus.  

Knowing now that Pilgrim.1 is actually familiar with Greek is disturbing because it suggests to me that she is willfully trying to deceive.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

As it happens this is the case with the greek language.  As pilgrim.1 tells us that she has studied greek I presume that she is well aware of this in the conjugation of greek verbs.  In which case I can only assume that she has been willfully deceptive and mendacious.
. . .

Knowing now that Pilgrim.1 is actually familiar with Greek is disturbing because it suggests to me that she is willfully trying to deceive.

Thank you for your graciousness. I know (and this is not new) that anything I point out these days only earns me some very nice "Christ-like" appellations from you guys - not only have I been labelled "rude, malicious, fanatic, ignorant, stupid, indoctrinated, accuser,", but the list grows by those who advise me to be "Christ-like" and are happy to still label me as you have added. No worries, but before you jail me allow some space for me to clear myself.

I am not being "willfully deceptive and mendacious". What I see is what I have pointed out and I have nothing against anyone in doing so. This is what you stated:

Pastor AIO:

This word ερευνατε (Ereunate) can be translated as[b] you search[/b] (present indicative) or as a command Search.  Which is it?

Well let us consider the context in which we find it.  The statement 'Ereunate the scriptures' is followed by a reason why.  '- for in them you think that you have eternal life'.  When someone does an action such as search the scriptures there is often a reason for it.  That reason is based on a presumption or belief that they have.  They search the scriptures because they think that therein lies eternal life.  This following phrase tells us that Jesus is say 'You search . . .'.  If it was a command it sounds wierd.  It should rather be  "[size=14pt]Search the scriptures because I Say that therein you have eternal life[/size]".    not 'I'm telling you to search the scripture because YOU THINK that therein you have eternal life'.  because you think' tells me that Jesus is referring to an action that originates from their own impulses and not a command from Jesus.

As I do not want to run the risk of being accused of taking your quote our of context, I have quoted everything. But what conclusion have you come to other than this:
     _____________________________________________________________________________
         It should rather be
       "Search the scriptures because I Say that therein you have eternal life"
     _____________________________________________________________________________

This is interesting! After labelling me as you pleased, you only came back to the same conclusion of what I had been pointing out? How is it that you do not have the YOU at the beginning of that verse in your own inference, Pastor AIO? Yours begins with "Search" and not "You" - is that not what I said and have been pointing to in discussing the imperative? Haa!

Second, I never assumed anywhere that John 5:39 was a command! Please go back to all my rejoinders thus far and see for yourself. I wonder if it is just that you read "pilgrim.1" that you just reacted the way you did and yet only came back to say the same thing?

Let me alloow you to rest your heart. If you are only saying the very same thing I did at that verse and yet you can be so "Christ-like" in your disenchantments, I thank you deeply from my heart. May God bless you many times over.

Shalom.

pilgrim.1:

@Pastor AIO,


Thank you for your graciousness. I know (and this is not new) that anything I point out these days only earns me some very nice "Christ-like" appellations from you guys - not only have I been labelled "rude, malicious, fanatic, ignorant, stupid, indoctrinated, accuser,", but the list grows by those who advise me to be "Christ-like" and are happy to still label me as you have added. No worries, but before you jail me allow some space for me to clear myself.

I am not being "willfully deceptive and mendacious". What I see is what I have pointed out and I have nothing against anyone in doing so. This is what you stated:

As I do not want to run the risk of being accused of taking your quote our of context, I have quoted everything. But what conclusion have you come to other than this:
     _____________________________________________________________________________
         It should rather be
       "Search the scriptures because I Say that therein you have eternal life"
     _____________________________________________________________________________

This is interesting! After labelling me as you pleased, you only came back to the same conclusion of what I had been pointing out? How is it that you do not have the YOU at the beginning of that verse in your own inference, Pastor AIO? Yours begins with "Search" and not "You" - is that not what I said and have been pointing to in discussing the imperative? Haa!

Second, I never assumed anywhere that John 5:39 was a command! Please go back to all my rejoinders thus far and see for yourself. I wonder if it is just that you read "pilgrim.1" that you just reacted the way you did and yet only came back to say the same thing?

Let me alloow you to rest your heart. If you are only saying the very same thing I did at that verse and yet you can be so "Christ-like" in your disenchantments, I thank you deeply from my heart. May God bless you many times over.

Shalom.

Have you totally lost your marbles. Now you're seeing things. I said that if Ereunate is to be translated as the imperative conjugation (ie the command 'search', rather than the present indicative You search) the the entire phrase sounds wrong. The only way it would sound right were if it said 'search the scriptures, for in them[b] I say[/b] you have eternal life.' But, as it is clear for all to see, that is not what the text says at all. I don't believe that you don't get that. You're just trying to dribble your way out of the fact that you have been caught red handed trying to peddle deception. We have not come to the same conclusion at all.

I translate Ereunate as the 2nd person conjugation of the present indicative. ie. 'You search the scriptures, because in them, you think to find eternal life.'
In ancient greek it is not the convention to place the you there. You know that because you've studied greek so why are you asking KunleOshob to show you the 'you'. Now tell me, is that not Mendacity and evidence of a desire to deceive? I will withdraw my allegations if you show me how it is not so. I do not throw such accusations at people lightly. If other people have said other things about you, I am not them and I do not know the history behind their calling you names, however I do know that there is no smoke without a fire so perhaps you need to give what they are saying some consideration. Maybe. I don't know, but I would if a lot of people started saying things about me that I didn't like. I would first try to find whether they have a point.

Pastor AIO:

Knowing now that Pilgrim.1 is actually familiar with Greek is disturbing because it suggests to me that she is willfully trying to deceive.

No she is not she is only trying to force her own biases into scripture as she literally confessed earlier

Pastor AIO:

Have you totally lost your marbles. Now you're seeing things. I said that if Ereunate is to be translated as the imperative conjugation (ie the command 'search', rather than the present indicative You search) the the entire phrase sounds wrong. The only way it would sound right were if it said 'search the scriptures, for in them[b] I say[/b] you have eternal life.' But, as it is clear for all to see, that is not what the text says at all. I don't believe that you don't get that. You're just trying to dribble your way out of the fact that you have been caught red handed trying to peddle deception. We have not come to the same conclusion at all.

Granted that we have not come to the same conclusion. That is why I waited to make yourself clear. Please understand something here: There is no place I have said that the verse was a direct command, and I know what you guys are trying to grasp from the word "imperative". Let me explain.

In the Greek imperative there, the Lord Jesus was not dissing them for searching the Scriptures - not at all; rather, the construct only shows that He pointed them to that very thing - "Search". And like you pointed out earlier, it is in connection to the basis of why He pointed them to that: the same scriptures they searched were pointing to Him. No confusion there.

Now, a basic principle in understanding this is to not derive meanings simply from a verse taken in isolation (2 Peter 1:20 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". When you go through the various ways that Jesus addressed the same group of people, He always pointed them back to the same Scriptures: not by direct command, but to impress them with the fact that in doing so they cannot in good conscience deny what they complain against.

This is not too difficult to see in that text; and that is why instead of being reactive, all one needed to do is see where the said word is, in reference to the accusation against the KJV that it "omitted" the word. The point is, that word was never there at the beginning of the verse, and that accusation is false.

Pastor AIO:

I translate Ereunate as the 2nd person conjugation of the present indicative. ie. 'You search the scriptures, because in them, you think to find eternal life.'
In ancient greek it is not the convention to place the you there. You know that because you've studied greek so why are you asking KunleOshob to show you the 'you'.

The only reason why I asked Kunle to show me where that is was because he had made the same assertion that was found in justcool's to the end that other versions got it right and the KJV got it wrong. How that came about was what I wanted him to point out directly from the text. Was that a hard request?

Pastor AIO:

Now tell me, is that not Mendacity and evidence of a desire to deceive?

No, that was why I posted the text in Greek.

Pastor AIO:

I will withdraw my allegations if you show me how it is not so.

I would do so if you could help me translate that verse as best you could.

Pastor AIO:

I do not throw such accusations at people lightly. If other people have said other things about you, I am not them and I do not know the history behind their calling you names, however I do know that there is no smoke without a fire so perhaps you need to give what they are saying some consideration. Maybe. I don't know, but I would if a lot of people started saying things about me that I didn't like. I would first try to find whether they have a point.

I have given every possible opportunity to reason with them; after laying my concerns and inviting responses, they either never considered what I stated or went on happily holding on to the same allegations.

KunleOshob:

No she is not she is only trying to force her own biases into scripture as she literally confessed earlier

I did not make any such confessions, thank you.

Pastor AIO:

Have you totally lost your marbles. Now you're seeing things. I said that if Ereunate is to be translated as the imperative conjugation (ie the command 'search', rather than the present indicative You search) the the entire phrase sounds wrong. The only way it would sound right were if it said 'search the scriptures, for in them[b] I say[/b] you have eternal life.' But, as it is clear for all to see, that is not what the text says at all. I don't believe that you don't get that. You're just trying to dribble your way out of the fact that you have been caught red handed trying to peddle deception. We have not come to the same conclusion at all.

I translate Ereunate as the 2nd person conjugation of the present indicative. ie. 'You search the scriptures, because in them, you think to find eternal life.'
In ancient greek it is not the convention to place the you there. You know that because you've studied greek so why are you asking KunleOshob to show you the 'you'. Now tell me, is that not Mendacity and evidence of a desire to deceive? I will withdraw my allegations if you show me how it is not so. I do not throw such accusations at people lightly. If other people have said other things about you, I am not them and I do not know the history behind their calling you names, however I do know that there is no smoke without a fire so perhaps you need to give what they are saying some consideration. Maybe. I don't know, but I would if a lot of people started saying things about me that I didn't like. I would first try to find whether they have a point.

It is so nice to see Pilgrim.1 being bullied and given a taste of her own medicine _{I am sure she thought she was the only one who could read greek on this thread}

KunleOshob:

It is so nice to see Pilgrim.1 being bullied and given a taste of her own medicine I am sure she thought she was the only one who could read greek on this thread

Lol, I don't feel bullied; people have done worse, so that is no bother at all. I have not used expressions as they have, so what is the dose of my own medicine there?

This thread has degenerated into a "bash Pilgrim" party, sista Pilgrim can I bash too?  

Anyways Kunle, you've sidestepped from your original line of dispute (and please correct me if I'm misquoting you):
--Your first post stated that whole portions of the bible (esp the OT) "misrepresent" God and are therefore men's biased opinions parading as the word of God, errors and hence don't belong in the bible.

--This is VERY different from discussing[u] translations errors [/u] when moving from greek to english to yoruba or ebonics or whatever. My 3yr old niece is even cognizant of the fact the words frequently don't translate accurately and perfectly over language lines.

   Discussing "translation problems" is worlds & light years away from saying portions of the bible, certain stories in the OT are errors and don't belong in the bible. I just wanted to point that out n make sure it's crystal clear.

and if Chris is still lingering around here somewhere sorry I got lost somewhere in the middle of our convo. Don't sweat it 'bout apologizing I didn't take any offense whatsoever and I hope I didn't cross you negatively either. I certainly do hope to have the pleasure of engaging you sometime again. Cheerios!

JeSoul:

This thread has degenerated into a "bash Pilgrim" party, sista Pilgrim can I bash too?

Anyways Kunle, you've sidestepped from your original line of dispute (and please correct me if I'm misquoting you):
--Your first post stated that whole portions of the bible (esp the OT) "misrepresent" God and are therefore men's biased opinions parading as the word of God, errors and hence don't belong in the bible.

--This is VERY different from discussing[u] translations errors [/u] when moving from greek to english to yoruba or ebonics or whatever. My 3yr old niece is even cognizant of the fact the words frequently translate accurately and perfectly over language lines.

Discussing "translation problems" is worlds & light years away from saying portions of the bible, certain stories in the OT are errors and don't belong in the bible. I just wanted to point that out n make sure it's crystal clear.

My dear i haven't side stepped from my original line of dispute, what i have done is to give additional evidence that the bible is not the undiluted word of God as church doctrination would like to present it. Unknown to most christians presenting the bible(with it's many glaring flaws) as the undiluted word of God (even when here is no evidence God had a hand or directed it's compilation) is doing more harm to the christianity than good. I am always appalled at all the unscriptural fabrications that so called "christians" come up with to defend a book God did not ordain in the first place. Don't get me wrong dear i believe a lot of things in the bible but then i can not accept the whole 66 books with various levels of editting as the undiluted word of God when it is clear that mortals like us wrote and compiled them with their human weaknesses and biases. In the book of John 10:8 Jesus said "all those who came before me were thieves and robbers" obviously he must have been refering to religious leaders that came before him and their writings/ teachings some of which must have found it's way into the mordern bible. Yet the catholic church for reasons best known to the compilers decided to include so many of these books even though they had no bearing on christianity and some of them actually contradict christian principles. Today some pastors are able to smuggle non- christian doctrine like tithes and first fruit offerings into christianity just becos the catholic church for reasons known to themselves alone decided to include books not relevant to christianity in the canon of our scriptures.

KunleOshob:

Today some pastors are able to smuggle non- christian doctrine like tithes and first fruit offerings into christianity just because the catholic church for reasons known to themselves alone decided to include books not relevant to christianity in the canon of our scriptures.

This is not about tithes; and tithes should not be your life-long anathema. But we have waited long for you to tell us what your own canon of scripture should be. What books do you mean by "the canon of our scriptures"? Please list them simply, thank you.

JeSoul:

This thread has degenerated into a "bash Pilgrim" party, sista Pilgrim can I bash too?

Lol, I wonder why you took that long to bash me sef. You know when you do yours, na anointing for my head you go bless me with. Anyhow, I trust you're doing okay?

hehe you know wetin the bible sef talk:

Psalm 141:5
Let a righteous man strike me, it is a kindness; let him rebuke me, it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it.
Proverbs 27:6
Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
 
I am well oh jare. My faith is being tested in ways it never has. So remember me in prayers! that this too shall pass, quickly! 

the letter killeth . . . but the spirit it giveth life.

KunleOshob:

My dear i haven't side stepped from my original line of dispute, what i have done is to give additional evidence that the bible is not the undiluted word of God as church doctrination would like to present it.

 Okay thanks for clearing that up.
I still think that both issues are very different bones that need to be cracked differently and seperately.

Unknown to most christians presenting the bible(with it's many glaring flaws) as the undiluted word of God (even when here is no evidence God had a hand or directed it's compilation) is doing more harm to the christianity than good.

 Thanks for bringing the point back up, it got lost somewhere.
This is of course YOUR opinion on the matter. As for me I look at the OT and it does me good.
- I see a no-nonsense God, who demands that His people be holy just as He is holy.
- I see a God of love and a God of wrath, A God of mercy and a God who metes out Justice and vengeance
- I see a God who hates sin and the sinner

 and this is what's so incredible about Jesus . . . even in our fallen, sinful, wretched state, God though He hates sin, still loved us so much to send His son to die for us! This is what makes the gospel so much more incredible and beautiful!

 The problem is people have dreamt up a romantic "God" that is only loving and kind and merciful . . . when the bible is bursting with pages that teach about the "consuming fire" that is also our God, His wrath and justice. Once we get rid of our happy-happy God then we can begin to make sense of many OT events. Gotta run now, but will hopefully be back to discuss further.

@Pilgrim.1: « #192 on: Today at 11:37:03 AM »

@KunleOshob,

I asked you to check and confirm the vacant assertion from justcool; but before you come back with another excuse, here's something to help you for starters:


Quote from: KunleOshob on Today at 11:06:36 AM
Is that not so very obvious the man has proved this by showing us several other versions that used the word "you" it was only KJV that omitted it and we already know that KJV as numerous translation errors

This is how that verse reads from where all those other "versions" derived their translations -

John 5:39

ερευνατε τας γραφας οτι υμεις δοκειτε εν αυταις ζωην
αιωνιον εχειν και εκειναι εισιν αι μαρτυρουσαι περι εμου

I am certain that Jesus speech in John 5;39, was not original made in Greek, but either Hebrew or Aramaic, since his primary audience was "Children of Israel." So give us this verse, John 5;39, in that exact original language. Can you?

I hope you can fish that out. Greek will not cut it, standing in place of still a spoken language of a vibrant people; the progenies of Jacob. (lol; I do miss you, sometimes. The same way I miss my dear friend Osisi). Am sure you always have your religious guard up.

Make Y! your home page Yahoo! recommends the new Firefox 3 Easily build a web site with Yahoo! Web Hosting. Yahoo! SearchWebImagesVideoLocalShopping
MoreAnswersAudioDirectoryJobsNewsAll Search ServicesAdvertising ProgramsDisable Search AssistSearch:
No suggestions. Please begin typing your search query.Search Assist: On | Off

Popular Yahoo! PropertiesYahoo! Home My Yahoo!
Nov 12, 2008 Page Options Color:Ocean Tangerine Violet Oyster Grass Pink
Switch to narrow layout

Want more ways to customize
your home page?
Try My Yahoo! »
Answers
Autos
Finance
Games
Groups
HotJobs
Maps
Mobile Web
Movies | TV
Music
OMG
Personals
Real Estate
Shine
Shopping
Sports
Travel
Yellow Pages

More Yahoo! Services
Small BusinessGet a Web Site
Domain Names
Sell Online
Search Ads
Featured ServicesDownloads
Health
Kids
GeoCities
Mail Plus
Y! International
Featured NavigationFeatured Entertainment Sports Video Nov 12, 2008
Surfer meets whale
An Australian kitesurfer describes his too-close encounter with a whale's tail. » What it felt like

See the biggest animal on Earth Find more about kitesurfing Kitesurfer gets wailed on by a whale's tail See LeBron's sweet dunk from just inside foul line A spokesman known as the 'Barack Whisperer' Bailout price tag now $3.5 trillion and rising » More:FeaturedBuzz
News NavigationNews World Local Finance In the NewsAs of 3:45 p.m. EST
• Disheartened Wall Street plunges for third straight session
• Poll: Public seems willing to wait for promised tax cuts
• Obama team expected to resolve Bush aide testimony dispute
• Iran test-fires precision missile that could reach Europe
• Government releases list of top five toy hazards for holidays
• Researchers find brisk walk can curb chocolate cravings

• Teen seen as reincarnated Buddha emerges from Nepal jungle

This event reminds anyone of anybody in the past? This young man is alive, presently in Nepal. he was reported to not have eaten any food for years. He once sat under a tree without moving for 2 years?!

He looks handsome, with ruggedly chiselled face. Long hair and lean frame. I am not surprised they think he is their god, too. The madness of disbelieving people. Its been happening for 2000 years now or even before. (The stupids always claim that a god is always walking on earth!).

» More:NewsPopularElection '08Markets:Dow: -4.3%Nasdaq: -4.4%Yahoo! FinanceReal-Time Quotes:

I don't usually post on the religion forum but this thread is very interesting. This thread is very intresting to me becuase I back in Nigeria, I used to have a pastors who preached that the bible is not the word of God. Everybody hated him for this. I once asked him personally what he meant, and he told me that the bible contains a lot of things, it contains some words of God and even some words of the devil. I was shocked and I asked him to show me and he queted Job 2 verse 4.

"Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life."

He also came with the issue of translations and complilation. I left him thinking that he was crazy and possesed.
But now living in America and watching the history chanel, and talking with christians here. It is obviouse that the bible was compiled by the early catholic bishops. Whoever denies this is either ignorant or crazy. It is a well known and documented facts that they removed alot of books. Knowlegeble Christians in America do not deny this. Rather they bass their fate on the Holy Spirit.
Closing ones eye to truth and upholding the bible to the level of God is blasphemy. Christ promised His folowers that He will send them the Spirit of Truth, not the bible. It is this spirit of Truth that will teach them everything! True Christians should be lead by the Spirit of Truth. You can also learn alot in the bible, if you can interpreate it rightly. But to hold that it is the undiluted word of God is a lie. It is only a compilation of many things.
Even a child can see that the bone of contenetion here, (john 39) actually reproaches poeple from serching for salvation in the scriptures. Please dont let inductrination blind you. We all recieved this inductrination in Nigeria where we a taught that the Bible is the word of God and should never be questioned.

Pastor AIO:
I can't tell whether I'm amused or irritated. Is it not a known fact that in many languages in the conjugation of verbs the person is often left out. For instance in spanish if I want to say 'I'm eating payela' I don't have to say Yo Como Payela. All I have to say is 'Como Payela'. 'NO tengo dinero' means I don't have any money (A very useful phrase to know if you ever go to South America). There is no person in 'no tengo dinero'. Tengo is not just have, but I Have.
As a result in many such languages the imperative (command) can get mixed up with the present indicative. 'Vive' can be a command to someone to live somewhere. On the other hand Vive can also mean 'She lives . . . ' somewhere.

As it happens this is the case with the greek language. As pilgrim.1 tells us that she has studied greek I presume that she is well aware of this in the conjugation of greek verbs. In which case I can only assume that she has been willfully deceptive and mendacious.

This word ερευνατε (Ereunate) can be translated as you search (present indicative) or as a command Search. Which is it?

Well let us consider the context in which we find it. The statement 'Ereunate the scriptures' is followed by a reason why. '- for in them you think that you have eternal life'. When someone does an action such as search the scriptures there is often a reason for it. That reason is based on a presumption or belief that they have. They search the scriptures because they think that therein lies eternal life. This following phrase tells us that Jesus is say 'You search . . .'. If it was a command it sounds wierd. It should rather be "Search the scriptures because I Say that therein you have eternal life". not 'I'm telling you to search the scripture because YOU THINK that therein you have eternal life'. because you think' tells me that Jesus is referring to an action that originates from their own impulses and not a command from Jesus.

Knowing now that Pilgrim.1 is actually familiar with Greek is disturbing because it suggests to me that she is willfully trying to deceive.

Pastor you are wise!

justcool:


Pastor you are wise!

We were waiting for you guys to address issues, not back patting yourselves.

pilgrim.1:

We were waiting for you guys to address issues, not back patting yourselves.

Pilgrim 1 whats up girl? how body. . . . . .

cocoman4u:

But now living in America and watching the history chanel, and talking with christians here. It is obviouse that the bible was compiled by the early catholic bishops. Whoever denies this is either ignorant or crazy. It is a well known and documented facts that they removed alot of books. Knowlegeble Christians in America do not deny this. Rather they bass their fate on the Holy Spirit.

Could you guys give us your own canon that includes and excludes whatever books the Holy Spirit confirms in your own hearts after fellowshipping with Him? Granted, everybody that has been asking questions to this end is either ignorant or crazy - but at least you who are now very super-spiritual could condescend to give us your own Holy Spirit canon, No?

Talk about the idea that they "removed a lot of books", it suggests that there was already a standard canon but some of the books contained in that canon were "removed", no? What books were "removed"? What did those books say and teach? Why were they removed? Why would they have been included? And if they were also included, would that satisfy your spirituality and be confirmed by your fellowship with the Holy Spirit as the canon for the standard of Christian living so that others are no longer "ignorant or crazy"?

The Catholic Church is blamed for this, that and the other. Is it not ambidextrous that after all that has been blamed upon them, the same accusers still go back and use what the Catholic Bishops have compiled? If you want to free yourselves from your worries about what they have done, appeal to the Holy Spirit to produce your own canon and be happy with that rather than to keep blaming the Catholic scholars for anything and yet unable to take one step to do anything better than they have done! Is that too hard a task to achieve while still disenchanted against the 'Catholic Bishops' for the canon you use today?

@mazaje,

mazaje:

Pilgrim 1 whats up girl? how body. . . . . .

Bo my dear bros, body dey o jare. Wetin dey happen for your corner? I hope enjoyment never diminish where you tanda?

pilgrim.1:

Could you guys give us your own canon that includes and excludes whatever books the Holy Spirit confirms in your own hearts after fellowshipping with Him? Granted, everybody that has been asking questions to this end is either ignorant or crazy - but at least you who are now very super-spiritual could condescend to give us your own Holy Spirit canon, No?

Talk about the idea that they "removed a lot of books", it suggests that there was already a standard canon but some of the books contained in that canon were "removed", no? What books were "removed"? What did those books say and teach? Why were they removed? Why would they have been included? And if they were also included, would that satisfy your spirituality and be confirmed by your fellowship with the Holy Spirit as the canon for the standard of Christian living so that others are no longer "ignorant or crazy"?

The Catholic Church is blamed for this, that and the other. Is it not ambidextrous that after all that has been blamed upon them, the same accusers still go back and use what the Catholic Bishops have compiled? If you want to free yourselves from your worries about what they have done, appeal to the Holy Spirit to produce your own canon and be happy with that rather than to keep blaming the Catholic scholars for anything and yet unable to take one step to do anything better than they have done! Is that too hard a task to achieve while still disenchanted against the 'Catholic Bishops' for the canon you use today?

You just don't get it, do you? Why has there got to be a Canon? Why does there have to be an authoritative compilation when you've got the holy spirit to guide you in all things. You're so stuck on this idea of 'searching the scripture' on the basis of 'therein you will find eternal life' that if one bible is proved short of the mark, you immediately seek out another one to replace it. It's not about any canon, ma cherie, it's about the holy spirit and you need to get the Holy spirit in you so you can get the guidance you need.

pilgrim.1:

Could you guys give us your own canon that includes and excludes whatever books the Holy Spirit confirms in your own hearts after fellowshipping with Him?

My dear pilgrim.1 you keep missing the point. where as it is usefull and profitable for us as christians to use the bible or scriptures to assist our spiritual growth and knowledge of the faith we profess, the bible should not be seen as a sine qua non to the faith. What Jesus promised us was the holy spirit to direct us in the faith. He never said he would send a written set of rules or any canon which we must use in his worship. So you telling us to come up with an alternative canon is quite diversionary. Why don't you carry out this exercise as a christian? Forget all you have ever been told or learnt about christianity and start afresh. Remember christianity starts in the new testament, read all the teachings of christ and the apostles. Any thing not taught there being practised today is what they refer to as doctrine of men.  The sooner we acknowledge and accept that a lot of what we call christianity today is indoctrination the better for us. And you would begin to realize this when you truly begin to study and live the spirit and nature of christ.

I have a poser for you, how come the geatest commandment of christ (love thy neighbour as your self) is being ignored in most christian circles today? Love in this tense i a verb(an action) it must be seen and felt not just lip service. How many of our churches actually show really love(passion /empathy) to their members and people around them.

Matthew 22:35-39:
35 One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
  37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

John 13:34-35:
34 So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. 35 Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”

My this-enchantment with churches and indoctrination is based on the failure of both the church and christians in general to keep a commandment our Lord and saviour described as the most important commandment. Yet they emphasize a lot of doctrines of Men