Posted on 10/18/2016 3:08:25 PM PDT by Brookhaven
Evangelicals Didn’t Even Study for This Test
...this year, LifeWay used more stringent criteria for evangelical faith, as defined by some group called the National Association of Evangelicals. Only participants who called the Bible their highest authority, said personal evangelism is important, and indicated that trusting in Jesus’ death on the cross is the only way of salvation, were labeled “evangelical.” They totaled 586 survey-takers.
Everyone expected them to perform better than most Americans. No one expected them to perform worse. Seven in ten evangelicals—more than the population at large—said that Jesus was the first being God created. Fifty-six percent agreed that “the Holy Spirit is a divine force but not a personal being.” They also saw a huge increase in evangelicals (28 percent, up from 9 percent) who indicated that the Third Person of the Trinity is not equal with God the Father or Jesus, a direct contradiction of orthodox Christianity.
As before, it’s really the contradictory answers, not the outright heresies, that should most concern us. By definition, the evangelicals in this survey believed that “only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.” Yet nearly half agreed that “God accepts the worship of all religions including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”
Former Newsday religion reporter Kenneth Briggs recently told Religion News Service that the faith he finds in “mega-type churches” is a “Bible-less,” “alternative version of Christianity.” Scripture, he says, has become “a museum exhibit, hallowed as a treasure but enigmatic and untouched.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
My questions were:
"When there is a genuine difference of opinion or interpretation, who decides what books are to be included in or removed from the Bible?"Who decided in England in the 17th and 18th centuries? "
The responses I'm looking for would have to involve a person's or persons' names or titles, or a group of persons, since they would answer the question "Who?"
`
`
`
However, Martin Luther thought the Epistle of James did not conform to the teaching of Romans.
You know?
Every translation has it's flaws and mistranslated context when compared to the original text...
I'm not losing any sleep over it...
Did you ever use a Strongs?
The KJV translates Strongs G2632 in the following manner: condemn (17x), damn (2x).
NKJV uses condemn instead of damned...same root word..
Explain that...?
You are infected with legalism.
Its actually the same study.
How do I “enshring” something?
WOW, you got the originals? LOL.. Better be careful with them, I'm sure by now they are very fragile. I guess the scribes over the past 4,000 years were wasting their time, being so meticulous when copying the word of God. It's a true miracle that you ended up with the originals.
Exodus 34:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
Are you purposely being stupid?
I don’t have the originals, Strongs base their definitions on the earliest texts...
You never answered my question about the strongs root word..
Thanks for doing the research; excellent and accurate post boatbums.
Ok, then don't make false claims. You said earlier:
Every translation has it's flaws and mistranslated context when compared to the original text.
Earliest texts and original text are two entirely different things.
And who cares if they have the same root, they mean entirely different things depending on the context they are used in. The word "damned" is used three times in the KJV, the word "damnable" is used 1 time, and the word "damnation" is used 11 times.
In every instance those words are used in the most severe sense of the word and pertain to eternal damnation, damned to hell fire, which is something only God Almighty can do.
The word "condemn" and all of it's various forms is used quite often, and can pertain to everything from simple disapproval, to putting someone to death, as well as people who are lost.
The question is, did the KJV translators use the right words in the proper context, and of course I believe they did, you don't, but again who cares what you believe, your name calling just proved to me, and to most everyone, that answering your straw man arguments, are not worth a second more of my time. Bye!
No problem....
You might want to address your legalism problem...
Anyone who claims the KJV is the only God approved Bible and the rest of the translations are birthed from the bowels of Satan has a legalism problem....
So all the Bibles translated from the KJV into different lauguage that have lexicon problems because their lauguage does not have a word for a KJV word are also from Satan...?
You have a consistency problem...
You mean like, "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" or do you mean the English name for the Son of God, Jesus?
Of course, if I was a native Chinese speaker His name would be "Yesu", if I was a native Spanish speaker, His name would be Je'sus, if Hebrew was my native language, His name would be "Yeshua", if German was my native language His name would be Ye-sus, so please tell me what TRUE names do you refer to?
But since you seem to be a glutton for punishment. You don't have a clue what legalism is, do you?
‘The response you’re looking for’ ... you demand I answer a poorly conceived question in the fashion you will allow? Typical ... The author of His Word does all the interpreting needed. Those who are so thoroughly institutionalized that they ... oh never mind. Your great mind is closed so tightly around Catholic dogma, I have zero chance of chipping a hole for sunlight to enter..
Let’s not make too much of a bug-tussle out of this. I merely asked who made these decisions.
A factual question which should elicit factual answer.
Yeah, I know. It’s been the same knuckleheaded, threadbare accusations for years now and no amount of counter arguments or solid proofs make even the slightest bit of difference to the broken record. Talk about beating a dead horse! This one’s unrecognizable as ever BEING a horse. ;o)
First, aren't you cute. Someone make a typo and your Christian Charity shines right through.
In answer to your query, someone enshrines someone or something by placing it or them above Christ, the Apostles, Scripture, and the Holy Spirit.
Who die Paul praise for studying the Scriptures?
Were they Greeks and therefore studying the Septuagint that contains the very books you advocate throwing in the garbage?
Did Paul happen to mention to them that they should throw out those books?
Did Christ or any Apostle every say to throw those books out of the Bible?
Does any Scripture, Old or New Testament, say to throw out books of the Bible ?
Did Jesus Christs Himself ever say there were books included in the Septuagint that were not His inspired Word?
We both know Christ never mentioned there being books included in the Septuagint that were not His inspired Word but you advocate throwing some books in the garbage. So, basically you assert that you know more about His Word and care more about His Word than the Word made flesh does. Interesting, and an indication that maybe it's not some heretic from history or anti-Christ Pharisee rabbis who are being enshrined by you after all.
Well, anyone who obeys those Pharisees or heretics is quite obviously enshrining them above Christ, the Apostles, and Scripture thereby making the assertion that the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error meaning, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is not perfect and cannot be a part of the Trinity, hence there is no Holy Trinity.
Unless the real assertion behind throwing His Holy Word in the garbage is that God Himself is not perfect, of course. In either case, such folks may call themselves Christian, they deny the basic foundation of Christianity.
Obeying someone, Pharisees or anyone else, when doing so means denying Christianity, that's a straight forward example of enshrining that alternative to Christ.
I'm so considerate I left you another typo to be cute with, too.
Okay, let's talk about this. If Mark Twain's book, Tom Sawyer, which was originally written in English, got translated into, say, German or Italian or Arabic, would the resulting book STILL be Tom Sawyer? Wouldn't it continue to be the same book just in another language? The King James Version was a translation of Bible manuscripts in the original Greek and Hebrew languages. When it was first generated, the English language was still being formed - Early English, the language used by Shakespeare, is dated from around 1500. The KJV was first published in 1610 and quite a few words as well as vowels are used much differently today. The modern KJV we can access today is different than the one from 1611.
My point is that the Bible - the word of God - remains the same even when translated into other languages, though certainly some translations are better than others. The Holy Spirit is the author and it is He who leads us into all truth. He is able to do that through Holy Scripture no matter what language one speaks. Many people prefer the KJV because of the beauty of the language form, others prefer a version that is closer to the modern English language in use in every day life. It's really not anymore complicated than that.
The person I made that comment to, was accusing me of being LDS, because of my stand on KJV. If my hint of sarcasm flew by you, I can't help that.
Contrary to your charge, no one said God hasn't preserved His word. We only challenged your claim that the KJV alone is His preserved word
Things that are different are not the same. Let me provide one example:
KJV
Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
NIV
Daniel 3:25
He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
ISV
Daniel 3:25
25 “Look!” he told them,[a] “I see four men walking untied and unharmed in the middle of the fire, and the appearance of the fourth resembles a divine being.”
Three different translations of the same verse. One says the fourth was like the Son of God, (confirming monotheistic doctrine) another says the fourth was like "a son of the gods", (promoting polytheistic doctrine) the third says, "resembles a divine being",
They all can not be right, because Son of God, is not a son of the gods, nor is the Son of God merely a divine being, any false deity can be considered a "divine being" but that doesn't make them the Son of God. I believe the KJV translators were correct in their translations, and IMHO, there seems to be something very sinister going on with these other translations.
This is just one example, there are many many more, that if I had time, I could give you, but you should do your own due diligence and check it out for yourself, be a Berean.
Oh, and by the way, people who believe that the
Third Person of the Trinity is not equal with God the Father or Jesus,
or
God accepts the worship of all religions including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Are not my brothers or sisters, they are children of disobedience, and their father is the father of lies, so keep your petty grievance to yourself.
It takes a while; looking up the unfamiliar words in the back; but after a bit you start to get a feel for the Jewishness of the NT; as well as the OT; too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.