KJV is the only correct translation according to those who feel this way. Others will tell you the only valid verisons are still written in Greek.

As far as what is right or wrong with your or anyone else's view...

that's an opinion that you hold and does not make you correct. nor does it make Muslims correct.

Each person answers to their Creator. No human alive today has the capacity to determine which religious version of The Creator is the correct one.

 

Well now Bretheren, what have we learned today?

1. Habibi is no John the Revelator

2. Everybody has a different opinion on Bible interpretation.

3. These threads aren't as much fun without my ol' buddy Shines

 

When I got divorced, I told the judge it was for "religious beliefs"... I was protestant, she was satan.

 

Please! As a moderator, I beg you to not repeat that!

 

Sorry Jim

 

It was only after I read the NIV, that I understood the KJV better. That is probably just my learnig curve, but the NIV made more sense. Noe the King James, is in a better perspective for me.

 

his twin could show up any time, though.

 

The best answer, Habibi, is that we don't know. None of us are qualified to judge. I would like to think that God has enough compassion for people who had no chance to live by the law that Jesus taught us, but I don't know.

 

"KJV is the only correct translation according to those who feel this way. Others will tell you the only valid verisons are still written in Greek.

As far as what is right or wrong with your or anyone else's view...

that's an opinion that you hold and does not make you correct. nor does it make Muslims correct.

Each person answers to their Creator. No human alive today has the capacity to determine which religious version of The Creator is the correct one."



I'm not going to get into the KJV debate since the modern versions are based on the Westcott-Hort new text "(they were necromancers and members of the Cambridge Apostles).

The Creator sent his Son to be the one-time sacrifice for sin. It will all be clear at death.

 

There's no doubt the NIV is easier to understand, it's just that it's origins go back to 1881 and the NEW Greek OT and NT created by the universalists Westcott and Hort. The NIV also makes the mistake of saying Elhanan killed Goliath and not David.

A long story short: The KJV is God's Word not watered-down. As it should be.

 

As a representative of the Church of Scientology, I here-by serve notice to all Christians... When "The Great Spaceship" comes to pick us up, all Christians will be left behind... Unless, of course, you are not privy to this information.

 

[QUOTE=Odin's Wrath;3991175]As a representative of the Church of Scientology, I here-by serve notice to all Christians... When "The Great Spaceship" comes to pick us up, all Christians will be left behind... Unless, of course, you are not privy to this information. [/QUOTE

 

And here I was thinking I just uncovered the Cadbury Secret.


Just because I didn't invent the idea, it still seems logical.
I'm just using the logic & reason that God gave me to make the world a better place.

I was reading that link posted by Super FX4, which has some interesting things in it.
I especially like the "Light of Conscience" thing, which as an Agnostic, I can relate to that.

What I don't quite get is this...
Romans 1- All have seen the light of Creation and are without excuse.
This is clear; this tells me "no Exceptions" to the pygmy tribe example.

Romans 2- All have heard the light of Conscience and are without excuse
I sort of get this, very similar to #1

If the bible tells us that the law is written on every heart (Rom 2:1, 3)
this is basically agreeing with the 'no excuses' thingy as written above in #1 & #2, which is, well, for arguments sake, I'll buy it (begrudgingly)

So if the above is true, why then must Christians have to do the following?

Romans 3- It’s our responsibility to take the light of Christ to those who have no excuse.

#1 & #2 clearly say there are no excuses, the light is stamped on the heart, everyone knows God, blah blah blah, and so if that's the case, why must #3 come into play?

Since living deep in the jungle will not suffice as excuses for not accepting JC into your heart, then why must number #3 be an imperative?

I know some of you guys will think I'm just being a smart *** or whatever, and do the heavy sigh followed by the "Pfffft", that's your right, and if that's how you feel, then what a good Christian you are, but I am asking seriously here in an attempt to use logic and reason.

As answer like

Well, The Lord is mysterious, and the fig leaf on the mountain top will surely bring you good tidings as long as you open your heart, blah blah blah, that's not an acceptable answer.

Let's use clear English and help me sort out the contradictions because as a human being, I could almost 'sign up' for the good word if it wasn’t for the so many contradictions that only serve to confuse the heck out of everyone.

Again, if #1 and #2 take away all excuses for not knowing God, then I would deeply resent having to be a door to door salesman and be forced into a position of having to convert people.

Habs


And to the jackass calling me a troll, go play in the traffic. If you have nothing useful to post, then why bother at all? Troll this.

 

Should read, "imagined contradictions."

 

I was reading your reply from the bottom up, so I couldn't see it was you, and I thought Stealth had replied.