RandomGuy48's Posts
Nairaland Forum / RandomGuy48's Profile / RandomGuy48's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (of 5 pages)
 Religion / Re: Is He Jesus Or "Yahshua"? by RandomGuy48: 5:39am On Sep 14, 2019 |
sonmvayina:Okay! Let's look at a few of those references. Their writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).Here's a link to Volume 2 of Life of Constantine, where it supposedly comes from: http://newadvent.org/fathers/25022.htm The quote's not there. I even, just to make sure, found a physical copy of the "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" and looked at page 518. It's not there. So looking up the source only confirms that they gave a citation that's false. That's hardly the only case. Examine this one: At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).No page or section of Historia Ecclesiastica is cited here. But a search through Historia Ecclesiastica turns up zero matches for this. In fact, one doesn't even need to do a search to figure out it's fabricated--all they need to know is that Historia Ecclesiastica was written prior to the Council of Nicaea and thus could hardly have included information on the proceedings! Let's look at more: Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 ( Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" ( Ecclesiastical History , Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).Volume 1, page 792 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia can be found here: https://archive.org/details/newcatholicencyc01thom/page/792 As you can see, it has provides no support for the claim made. Page 792 is about the idea of freedom of association. As for the second, while whether it was set in Osius's palace isn't really that important, does his source back him up? Well, there was a Louis Dupin, but he wrote no book called Ecclesiastical History. Perhaps it means "Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques" which sounds sort of similar. Problem is, there is no page 598 in Volume 1, as we can see here: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=NYZDAAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1 But it gets worse. He goes on to quote made-up works: In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).Sounds great! Now, where can I find a copy of this "Secrets of the Christian Fathers" book by J.W. Sergerus? Because outside of a handful of quotes (all of them going back to the person who wrote the essay you linked to), I cannot find any proof this work actually exists, nor that there was any "Bishop J.W. Sergerus". This work--and bishop--appear to be made up. "As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).This quote is actually accurate in that the source says it (I have no idea what "S.L. Macguire's translation" is supposed to be, though, as the work was already in English). The problem is the source. "God's Book of Eskra" is part of "Oahspe: A New Bible", the holy book of the group "Universal Faithists of Kosmon" and is a work produced in the 19th century by a dentist who claimed God dictated the whole thing to him. Unless you are asserting that God did in fact dictate the work to him, which I doubt you are, it is useless as a historical source. More examples of these sorts of errors could be listed, but I believe this should suffice. So the act of looking up the references leads to one of the following conclusions: Tony Bushby is either an outright liar or he just saw some random quotes and jammed them all together without bothering to double check to make sure they were real. Either way, the document you appealed to is hardly worth taking seriously. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Religion / Re: Is He Jesus Or "Yahshua"? by RandomGuy48: 5:29am On Sep 14, 2019 |
herlecks:And how do you know the name was Yahshua? What is your source? Because it isn't the Bible, which uses Iesous--the Greek version of Jesus's name. I'm also not sure where you get the name "Yahshua" from. The more common speculation regarding Jesus's Hebrew name was Yeshua, which comes from the Hebrew word for rescue. But we don't know for sure it was Yeshua. It could have been Yeshu or Yehoshua--while written differently in Hebrew, those names are all written as "Iesous" in Greek (hence why when the New Testament refers to Joshua from the Old Testament, it also uses Iesous). Simply put, this idea that there's a problem with using a translated name doesn't add up because the Bible itself uses a translated name and does not provide us with certainty what the original name was. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Was Wrong, There Is No Mustard Tree by RandomGuy48: 1:05am On Sep 01, 2019 |
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/smallseed.php "Of course, the scientific classification schemes of modern botany were not yet invented -- classification was by appearance and function, not by biology. In that regard, the mustard plant of Palestine (Sinapis nigra) could grow to a height of several (2-6) feet and be considered a tree -- if not by the scheme of modern science (Is a bonsai a "tree"?), then assuredly by the descriptive classification scheme of the ancients." |
| Religion / Re: I Have Lost My Zeal For Attending Church by RandomGuy48: 6:57pm On Aug 25, 2019 |
Firstorderwizard:Have you considered visiting different churches and seeing if it changes anything? |
| Religion / Re: Who Should Partake In Holy Communion?? by RandomGuy48: 6:55pm On Aug 25, 2019 |
A few notes. Communion, the act of taking the bread and wine--also known as the Lord's Supper--is not simply a Catholic thing. Many--perhaps even most--Protestant groups have communion as well, though some replace the wine with juice. What is more specific--but not limited--to Catholicism is the doctrine of the Real Presence, the idea that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus rather than it being a purely symbolic celebration. While this belief is most associated with Catholicism, this is also believed in by Lutherans, Anglicans/Espicopalians, and the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox. Methodists and Presbyterians also believe in this to a lesser degree, viewing it as more of a "spiritual" change but nevertheless rejecting the idea that Communion is purely symbolic. I think some Pentecostal groups also take the Methodist/Presbyterian view. The idea unique to Catholicism is the doctrine of Transubstantiation, a specific understanding of how the Real Presence works that is rejected by the other groups mentioned. When I gave my initial answer in this topic, I was trying to give an answer that I felt applied regardless of whether one saw communion as literal (the Real Presence as discussed above) or symbolic. |
| Religion / Re: Who Should Partake In Holy Communion?? by RandomGuy48: 2:43am On Aug 25, 2019 |
Well, the Didache, perhaps the earliest extent Christian writing outside of the New Testament itself, had this to say: "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."" And later: "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." At least based on the Didache, it appears to be a statement that, in addition to requiring one to be baptized, one should not take Communion while in a state of sin. So confess/reconcile/repent as necessary to make yourself pure before taking it. 10 Likes 1 Share |
| Religion / Re: Does "In The Name Of Jesus" Really Work? by RandomGuy48: 2:33am On Aug 23, 2019 |
kimco:This I am not so sure about. I expect part of it was a desire to differentiate Jesus of the New Testament from the Joshuas mentioned in the Old Testament when translating the Bible into other languages. Interestingly, I believe that to this day, Jesus and Joshua are still written the same way in Greek. |
| Religion / Re: Marianne Williamson's New Age Deception And False Christ by RandomGuy48: 12:14am On Aug 23, 2019 |
The article acts as if Marianne Williamson is actually a leading candidate. She's not. In fact, she's almost certain to be rendered irrelevant within a week. The next Democratic Party debate is in September. Now, to have any actual chance of becoming the Democratic candidate for president, you essentially HAVE to be in the debates. No one takes you seriously if you're not there. If you miss the debates, you're not getting the nomination. But to be in the debates, you have to meet the requirements. One of the requirements to be in the next debate is to reach 2% or higher in at least four polls. Marianne Williamson... has done so in zero. The deadline to reach the required four polls is August 28. It's theoretically possible to do so in the intervening time period, but it's astoundingly unlikely. I guess we'll see for sure in a week, but it's very odd for the article to make a big deal out of a candidate who can't even be counted as one of the top 10. |
| Religion / Re: For Those Of You Who Say Masturbation Is Not Sin... by RandomGuy48: 11:50pm On Aug 22, 2019 |
BULLIONVAN4:Is there actual empirical proof of these claims? |
| Religion / Re: Do You Support God's Decision Of Sending 2 Bears To Maul 42 Kids To Death by RandomGuy48: 9:39am On Aug 21, 2019 |
Dantedasz:It's not a matter of how to interpret the link. It simply put doesn't say what you claimed. You claimed that Constantine made Christianity the state religion, but your link didn't say that. Instead, it backed up my statement that the Edict of Milan only legalized Christianity. Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. As for this: I see you conveniently avoided the question of who made the cross the official symbol of christianity.....I didn't respond to your rambling about the cross because it wasn't part of the message you responded to me to, so I missed it. Not only that, it wasn't even relevant to what I was saying, and I'm confused about what the point is supposed to be. Even if Helena made the cross the symbol of Christianity, so what? Does that have to do with my original point? Or with much of anything? In any event, the evidence goes against your claim. The cross was already a symbol of Christianity before her. It's plausible her alleged discovery of the true cross helped in popularizing it as the symbol of Christianity, but that's pretty far from her "making" it into the symbol. Also, I'm not sure why you post the links as Google redirects rather than the actual URLs: https://www.catholicireland.net/saintoftheday/st-helen-c-250-330-mother-of-constantine/ 1 Like 1 Share |
| Religion / Re: Does "In The Name Of Jesus" Really Work? by RandomGuy48: 3:59am On Aug 21, 2019 |
kimco:I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking here. Greek was the most notable language because it was the language that would best be understood by the highest number in the early church. Many of the Jewish members of the church, even if we relegate ourselves to the Jewish territories, knew Greek to at least some degree (the Septuagint, a translation of the New Testament into Greek, was quite popular among Jews at the time), and obviously the Greek converts would speak Greek. Technically speaking, the official language of the Roman Empire was Latin, but Latin was mostly relegated to the western part of the empire, which (due to its greater distance from Jerusalem) was not initially preached to as much as the eastern areas that spoke Greek. and for christ sakes why how did the writers come to speak and write in greek? Iirc most were not that educated even and hardly well travelled.Well, some of them were most certainly educated, like Paul. But even for those who may have been uneducated at the time Jesus called them, they absolutely could have learned how to write Greek afterwards. But, of course, there was another possibility. When writing, they could have gotten someone who was fluent in Greek to help them out (either by direct translation or in serving a more editorial role). There would certainly have been other Christians available who could do that. |
| Religion / Re: Do You Support God's Decision Of Sending 2 Bears To Maul 42 Kids To Death by RandomGuy48: 2:57am On Aug 21, 2019 |
Dantedasz:Your own source contradicts you. "Constantine now became the Western Roman emperor. He soon used his power to address the status of Christians, issuing the Edict of Milan in 313. This proclamation legalized Christianity and allowed for freedom of worship throughout the empire." Does it say anything about making Christianity the state religion? No. It just says it was legalized and allowed freedom of worship, as I noted. 2 Likes |
| Religion / Re: Do You Support God's Decision Of Sending 2 Bears To Maul 42 Kids To Death by RandomGuy48: 12:12am On Aug 20, 2019 |
Dantedasz:You say to "forget all the lies and spin" and then immediately throw out a flat-out lie. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. All he did was legalize it, ending persecution and putting it on equal legal footing with other religions. He certainly favored it, but did not make it the official religion. Christianity didn't become the state religion until the Edict of Thessalonica, which was issued 43 years after Constantine's death. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Religion / Re: Do You Support God's Decision Of Sending 2 Bears To Maul 42 Kids To Death by RandomGuy48: 12:10am On Aug 19, 2019 |
finalboss:Why shouldn't it make a difference? Older people are considered more responsible for their actions than little children are. This statement doesn't make sense. But let's suppose they were in fact younger children. Your complaint still has a number of issues. You claim that 42 kids were mauled to death. The problem is, it doesn't say "mauled to death." It just says "mauled" (or "tare" in the translation you cite). That indicates definite injury, but not necessarily death. But let's suppose they were killed. Some points are overlooked when people complain about this passage. First: It says 42 were killed. Now, those who complain about the passage frame this as being terrible, that 42 were attacked! What they seem to not miss is the fact that this means there were at least 42 that were in a group here (the language implies there were more, as it doesn't say all 42). This is important for two reasons. First, in regards to the above question of whether they were killed or injured. It is very difficult for two bears to manage to kill 42 people unless those people are all just standing around not moving while the bears are on the attack. If you're with a big group and some bears show up and start attacking people, are you just going to stand there dumbly? No, you're going to run away as fast as you can. Bears can kill people but it takes them a little bit of time to do it (versus simply injuring them, which is obviously faster) and it would be very difficult for the bears to have time to kill that many people while they're all running away. Second, do you think 42+ people decided to go out of their way just to throw a few insults at Elisha for the heck of it? That seems implausible. Far more likely is that they were actually threatening him and were planning to rob or possibly kill him (the "go on up" jeer can refer to going on up to heaven). If someone is attacking someone else in order to kill and rob them, is it particularly problematic to defend that person by attacking or (if necessary) even killing the robber? 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Does "In The Name Of Jesus" Really Work? by RandomGuy48: 12:43am On Aug 18, 2019 |
kimco:I am not sure why it doesn't make sense. Knowledge of Greek was common among Jews at the time, with some Jews being far more competent in Greek than in Hebrew. Meanwhile, the non-Jewish didn't know Hebrew very well but understood Greek just fine. Writing in Greek, therefore, would render the New Testament scriptures understandable to the greatest number of people back then, as it would be understandable to both Jews and non-Jews alike. |
| Religion / Re: Does "In The Name Of Jesus" Really Work? by RandomGuy48: 9:03pm On Aug 17, 2019 |
kimco:The books in the New Testament are. The Old Testament was in Hebrew, though. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Does "In The Name Of Jesus" Really Work? by RandomGuy48: 11:25am On Aug 17, 2019 |
kimco:It is true Jesus was not in the original scriptures. But neither was Yahushua. The New Testament scriptures are all in Greek. The name given to Jesus in Greek is Iesous, which is the name found in Scripture. However, there are multiple (though very similar) Hebrew names that all get written as Iesous in Greek, such as Yeshua and Yehoshua. Thus, it is not possible to know for sure which of these was the original Hebrew name of Jesus, because we have only the Greek version of the name and there are multiple names that can be rendered as Iesous. But does it matter which it is? As noted, the writers of the New Testament were all comfortable using Iesous when writing in Greek. None of them felt that it was critical to use the original Hebrew name, whatever it was. |
| Religion / Re: There Is No Hell Fire – Pope Francis by RandomGuy48: 2:44am On Aug 17, 2019 |
Tocynone:The person who claimed Francis said this, Eugenio Scalfari, is an interviewer who's known for not taking notes during interviews and thus giving incorrect quotes (he's also really old so one has to wonder about the quality of his memory due to that). In fact, the linked article ITSELF admits this: "In the past, the veracity of quotes he attributed to the pope has been called into question, especially after the 93-year-old Scalfari admitted to never using a tape recorder during interviews." There is little reason to give credence to Scalfari's unverified claims, especially as they contradict what Francis has been verified to say elsewhere, where he has affirmed the existence of hell. Also, this story is from over a year ago, so I don't know why the article is presenting it as if it's something new. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Is Not Different From Yeshua by RandomGuy48: 11:33pm On Aug 16, 2019 |
Pretty good information on the whole. I'd like to make one small addition: FelixIshola:How about we go back further, to the earliest English translation we have of the Gospels? The Wessex Gospels is from 990, and here's their rendering of Matthew 1:1: Her is on eneorisse bóc Hælendes Cristes, Dauides suna, Abrahames suna. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Is Not God – Reno Omokri by RandomGuy48: 4:46am On Aug 16, 2019 |
hupernikao:Indeed. It is a little amusing to post a link, and then see a bunch of claims thrown out against it... that are refuted by the very link I pointed to! The simple fact is, if you examine these supposed "parallels" closely, you'll find out they don't stand up and are in fact frequently outright made up. That is why people who advance them rarely give any actual source, and those that do only point to another person who doesn't give a source themselves! Though in regards to Caesar's Messiah, it's a hardly a reliable book. Here are some critiques: http://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/book-reviews/a-critique-of-joseph-atwills-covert-messiah/ (fairly short) http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.php (longer and more detailed) Heck, Caesar's Messiah is so weak that even atheists have harshly criticized it (as noted in the first link). |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Is Not God – Reno Omokri by RandomGuy48: 2:57am On Aug 15, 2019 |
Amujale:This claim gets made on the Internet sometimes, but it's nonsense. People will list supposed "parallels" between Jesus and them, but if you actually do research you'll find out they're often outright made up. This site examines a lot of these supposed parallels and explains why they're inaccurate: http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Drank Alcohol. A Fact From The Bible by RandomGuy48: 5:27am On Jul 23, 2019 |
Anas09:I agree that it is drunkenness rather than drinking that is sinful, but I still think there is good reason to drink as little as possible. Back in biblical times, it was a whole lot harder to get drunk than it is now. Wine was more expensive, harder to get, and perhaps most importantly, generally less intoxicating. Not only is wine more intoxicating now than it was then, we also have things like rum and vodka readily available (and cheap!), which are much more alcoholic than wine. If we had such strong admonitions against drunkenness in the Bible back when it was a lot harder to get drunk, we should be even more careful nowadays. |
| Religion / Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 4:09am On Jul 23, 2019 |
Janosky:https://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/major-problems-with-the-new-world-translation/ https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html |
| Religion / Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 3:53am On Jul 23, 2019 |
Before anything else, I want to make my position here clear. I do not dislike the KJV. If someone wants to use the KJV, I have no problem with it. There's a lot to like about it! The language is beautiful and the high degree of literalness in the translation while still being quite readable (the archaic language notwithstanding) is extremely impressive. Other translations that try to be as literal as possible, such as the NASB, end up with a good number of wooden and awkward passages as a result--though admittedly, the NASB goes for literalness harder than the KJV does. I don't agree with the idea that the KJV is the best English translation, but if someone is of that opinion I wouldn't have an issue with it. My problem is when people go past the idea of "the KJV is the best English translation" to the claim that no other translation should be used or that the KJV has no errors when it most certainly does. Anyway, we now move into the reply: alBHAGDADI:I'm aware it doesn't come from the same parent as most modern translations, as well as the weak attempts that King James Onlyists use to try to cast shade on the modern sources. But more to the point, even if we accept the Textus Receptus (its source for the New Testament) as completely correct--and I would say there are good reasons to believe it is not--the KJV still doesn't translate the Textus Receptus perfectly. Not to mention, this misses an important point I raised. Again: RandomGuy48:As I noted, the translators themselves certainly didn't hold to KJV Onlyism--their preface (which is unfortunately left out of modern versions of the KJV) was quite clear on that: "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [worst] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere." Indeed, they point out how the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, was considered the Word of God despite containing various errors of translation: "The translation of the Seventy [Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome [Jerome] and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using of it so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." More could be pointed out... one may read the full thing here. So the translators did not hold to King James Onlyism. Nor did people for the next several centuries hold to this idea of KJV Onlyism; that only emerged in the 20th century. That's not to say there weren't those who were big fans of the KJV, or defenders of the Textus Receptus, but they were a far cry from modern KJV Onlyists. For example, John William Burgon (sometimes erroneously pointed to by KJV Onlyists as someone who held their views), who was a proponent of the KJV and the Textus Receptus, nevertheless stated "We hold that a revised edition of the Authorized Edition of our English Bible [the KJV], (if executed with consummate ability and learning), would at any time be a work of inestimable value" and "in not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly." (both quotes from his book The Revision Revised) So while the KJV was popular, and some would argue it was the best translation available, the notion of it being the only worthwhile translation, let alone one free of errors, was not entertained. Then Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day Adventist who liked the KJV because he thought it better supported the Adventist doctrines of soul sleep and continued keeping of the Sabbath, came along and published a pro-KJV book in 1930 and thus, more than 300 years after the KJV was published, the idea that it was somehow the only Bible to use came about. To be fair, it wasn't really Benjamin Wilkinson who popularized it... it was David Otis Fuller, who essentially edited out the various references to Ellen G. White and Seventh-Day Adventism that were in Wilkinson's book to make it appealing to non-SDAs and then published this new version. This idea of the KJV being some kind of perfectly preserved Bible translation wasn't known for centuries after its publication and hasn't even existed for a full century yet. Now, I'll be skipping past the attempted rebuttals to the errors I pointed out as I believe my points still stand and getting into a back-and-forth about specific errors not only isn't a productive usage of my time (I have already spent too much time writing up this post, quite frankly), but is missing the bigger picture that will be explained shortly. Thus, I'll move onto the overall point: Remember God said he will preserve his word. But you guys claim there is no perfect word of God today. Shame on you all. I mean, look at what you call errors in the KJV, Joshua, unicorns etc. Isn't that ridiculous?Those were just a few examples, and I was attempting to limit myself to issues of translation to keep it simple, rather than going into the more complex issues of the problems of the underlying Textus Receptus. We are talking about Bible versions which ommit complete verses, called Jesus Satan, called Joseph the father od Jesus, attacked the Trinity, deny the virgin birth, which are all key Christian doctrines, but here you are talking about unicorn and things you don't even understand how scholars arrived at them. Keep it up. Mind you, you have called God a liar by saying f he couldn't preserve his word.Again, if you think the KJV is superior to those other translations--though if these problems you're listing are references to what I think they are, then you are being rather misleading with them--then go right ahead and enjoy the KJV to your heart's content. The claim that the KJV has no errors, however, is itself an error. But what I find interesting is you say to deny the inerrancy of the KJV is to "call God a lair by saying f he couldn't preserve his word." Well, it is actually the KJV Onlyist who calls God a liar under this understanding of preservation. If the KJV is the "preservation" of God's word, then God actually broke the preservation promise because that means God's word wasn't properly preserved until the KJV, which was first published in 1611, meaning people were without it until then. Actually, not even then, as there were various revisions that it underwent over a long period of time until it got to its current iteration. While many were simple things like spelling updates, others actually did shift the meaning (e.g. Job 30:3 changing from flying to fleeing or Jeremiah 49:1 changing God to Gad; more can be found here). So even if the KJV has perfect preservation now, it certainly didn't in its original publication and took over a century to get it to it. And even if it did somehow have perfect even in its original form, that still doesn't solve the problem of God not preserving his word until the year 1611. Or is the claim that the Textus Receptus is the preserved text? Even assuming that’s true, that refutes the claim the KJV is perfect; it isn't a perfect translation of the Textus Receptus. And we still have the fact that God failed to preserve his word up until that point, as not a single manuscript has the exact text of the Textus Receptus… not a single one (this also dismisses the claim that there was a trail of preserved Greek manuscripts that lead to the KJV). This alleged perfect preservation was not available. So the claim that the KJV must be perfect because of the alleged doctrine of preservation serves to only contradict the doctrine of preservation as presented by the KJV Onlyist, as God DIDN’T preserve his word up until the KJV reached its final form. Thus, it is the King James Onlyist that is the one who calls God a liar for not preserving his words for so long. In fact, someone on another message board put it so well that I feel I have to simply quote them verbatim: God has preserved the actual words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles today in the same way as He did before 1611, and they are not found in the KJV. Your human erroneous non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning does not settle what the Scriptures teach about the preservation of the Scriptures. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning has to change the preservation of the words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles to some vague, unproven, dynamic-equivalent meaning or thought preservation in changing words in a different language. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning avoids and dodges the truth. The KJV translators pointed out that they did not provide an English word for every original-language word of Scripture in their multiple, varying original-language texts, and that they added many words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. In addition, present post-1900 editions of the KJV do not even preserve every word found in the 1611 edition, and they add over 140 words not found in the 1611 edition. Over 2,000 changes were made to the 1611 edition of the KJV in most post-1900 KJV editions. The KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are. (Source: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/post-reformation-theologians-had-nothing-in-common-t6128-s30.html) |
| Religion / Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 7:34am On Jul 22, 2019 |
alBHAGDADI:Yes there is. There are plenty. Just because such errors are inconvenient to the King James Only position (which was not believed in by the KJV translators, the readers at the time, or largely anyone until the Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson promoted it in the 20th century) doesn't mean they're not there. The book of Acts is written on Greek. The hebrew name of Jesus is something close to Joshua. But when you transliterate it to Greek, the spelling change because some Hebrew letters are not found in Greek alphabets. It's the Greek derivative that gave us Jesus in English.All you've explained is why they made the error. It's an understandable error. Jesus and Joshua are written the same way in Greek, and they didn't notice from context it was referring to Joshua. But other languages, including English, write Jesus and Joshua differently. Thus, they made an error by using Jesus instead of Joshua. Read the link below.While the link is correct in debunking the "Easter is pagan" myths, it is wrong in this translation. Despite the author's attempt to weasel out of the situation by saying it was Luke who used the word and thus it would have the Christian meaning, what it actually says is that Herod was planning to wait until the end of Passover to deal with Peter. But the end of Passover is after the end of Easter. Herod would have no reason to take Peter out at the end of Easter (while Passover was still going on), but every reason to wait until the end of Passover. Even if we assume the Christian holiday of Easter lasted as long as Passover back then, which we have absolutely no proof of as far as I am aware, Herod would care about Passover, not Easter. It should be Passover. Unicorn is not a fantasy beast. Don't be fooled by Disney Land which shows a white horse with wings and a horn.Except, as I noted and you ignored, the Bible says that the re'em (translated as unicorn in the KJV) has multiple horns. A unicorn, by definition, has one. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 5:15am On Jul 22, 2019 |
Janosky:Stands tall? I suppose it stands tall in supporting Jehovah's Witness doctrines but only because it's notorious for twisting its translation to fits JW ideas. alBHAGDADI:I don't know if "50,000" errors is true or not, but there are definitely a good number. Here are a few: Acts 7:4 and Hebrews 4:8 are, as should be obvious from context, are referring to Joshua from the New Testament. But the King James Version incorrectly translates Joshua as "Jesus." Acts 12:4 refers to Passover. The KJV incorrectly translates it as "Easter". The King James Version repeatedly refers to the unicorns (e.g. Numbers 23:22, Job 39:9-10, Isaiah 34:7), a fantasy beast. This is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word re'em. "Unicorn" doesn't even make sense in Deuteronomy 33:17 because it says that they have multiple horns whereas a unicorn, as implied by its very name, has only one. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Which Bible Translation Is Easy To Understand? by RandomGuy48: 4:25am On Jul 22, 2019 |
FantomGreenz:No Bible translation is perfect, but because learning Ancient Greek and Hebrew isn't an option for most, we end up having to utilize them. Depends somewhat on what you're looking for. If you're looking for the most literal translation possible, you'll want the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Unfortunately, because of how literal it is, the NASB sounds really stilted and wooden a good amount of the time. The most popular Bible in English is the New International Version, though some of the changes it went through in 2011 were controversial. While not necessarily that well-known, one I did like is the NET Bible, which is primarily used online (netbible.org). What sets this one apart is its extremely in-depth footnotes explaining its various translation choices and information about the underlying text. Other popular English ones are the New Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation, Christian Standard Version, and English Standard Version. If you're just looking for a more comprehensible King James Version, there is the 21st Century King James Version. It keeps all the renderings of the King James Version--including its errors--but updates some of the more archaic words. 1 Like |
| Romance / Re: What Is It About Catholic Church.. by RandomGuy48: 7:40pm On Jul 20, 2019 |
Kelvinsaint:I'm a little confused by your message. Is the issue whether the marriage itself is held in the Catholic Church, or whether the groom is actually a member of the Catholic Church? In regards to the former, to my understanding the Catholic Church does require its members to be married by a Catholic priest. But... I'm not absolutely sure about all the rules, but can't you just do both? As is my understanding, churches are free to have the religious ceremony of marriage without actually issuing a legal certificate of marriage (i.e. one recognized legally by the government), so you can just have the religious ceremony of marriage in both churches but only have one of them actually issue the legal certificate. For monetary reasons you'd presumably want one of the two ceremonies to be a simple, private affair (or maybe it's possible to have both the Catholic and Anglican priest perform the ceremony together at the same wedding--not sure though), but it seems that would be satisfactory to both of the churches in satisfying their marital requirements. |
| Religion / Re: Letter To The Church:article By Rocksgospel by RandomGuy48: 7:03pm On Jul 20, 2019 |
Why are so many words randomly capitalized in the article? |
| Religion / Re: Can Things Like Ear Rings, Wigs, Eyelashes Etc Take Someone To Hell fire? by RandomGuy48: 9:21pm On Jul 14, 2019 |
0temSapien:So, again... RandomGuy48:Pointing to your own posts isn't answering the question. |
it reduces the rate of crimes like rape, paedophile, etc and also reduces sexual urge, risk of contacting STD/STI, risk of unwanted pregnancies etc. so you see that masturbation is good no doubt.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (of 5 pages)
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 157 |