Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $20,082
22%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 22% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by RansomOttawa

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Review: Roger Waters blasts Donald Trump during eye-popping concert at Tampa's Amalie Arena

    07/12/2017 7:56:10 AM PDT · 19 of 46
    RansomOttawa to Olog-hai

    So, basically, he’s gotten over the death of his father and found a new source of inspiration?

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/29/2017 1:39:02 PM PDT · 138 of 173
    RansomOttawa to WhatNot

    I will take your sudden change of subject as a tacit admission that you were, in fact, misrepresenting me. Thank you.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/29/2017 10:02:26 AM PDT · 134 of 173
    RansomOttawa to WhatNot
    Nice try. This is what you said
    "The specific number doesn't make it more or less true
    If what you really wanted to say was,
    the number doesn't make truth more or less true.

    No, by "it" I meant what I actually said: that the divinity of Christ (which is, of course, a truth) is not made "more or less true" by the number of times it is affirmed.

    You then twisted my meaning to falsely accuse me of being a truth relativist—the exact opposite of my meaning. You are now again twisting my meaning to pretend you were right all along about what I said.

    Try for a little consistency, or failing that, at least not lying any more.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/29/2017 9:40:32 AM PDT · 132 of 173
    RansomOttawa to WhatNot
    Now truth has degrees of more or less, there's no absolute truth.

    I said the number doesn't make truth more or less true. From this you conclude that I think it does?

    Good grief, the KJV-only Illiteracy Squad is really doing the rounds in this thread.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/29/2017 8:29:08 AM PDT · 129 of 173
    RansomOttawa to WhatNot
    What if there are many more verses that "affirmed the divinity of Jesus Christ" but your Bible only gives you eight?

    The specific number doesn't make it more or less true. Only one would refute the KJV-only lie definitively.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/29/2017 8:06:27 AM PDT · 125 of 173
    RansomOttawa to WhatNot
    If your Bible replaces the word "God" with the word "gods" in this verse:

    Daniel 3:25

    I posted eight verses in which a modern Bible version clearly and unambiguously affirmed the divinity of Jesus Christ. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are not foolish enough to think posting one verse from the Old Testament without explanation somehow magically nullifies the other eight.

    So what is the purpose of this sudden change of subject? May I take it as tacit acceptance that when KJV-onlyists claim modern versions deny the deity of Christ, they have been spreading lies?

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 8:50:16 PM PDT · 119 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    And of course, you have to ‘correct’ the KJB in order to make your point.

    And, of course, you have to twist my words again to make yours.

    I did not "correct" the KJV. The KJV's term is correct. I merely ensured that it was defined properly. It was your understanding of that term that required correction.

    On the surface, it would appear that you are arguing that the KJV says all three divine persons of the Trinity were incarnate in Jesus Christ, rather than the Son only. Wouldn't it be ironic if you were straining at the gnat of Bible versions while swallowing the camel of a major Christological heresy...

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 8:27:59 PM PDT · 117 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress; dartuser
    Except that Colossians 2:9 in the KJB says that the fullness of the trinity abides in Christ - that’s certainly stronger than simply saying that Deity (godness) dwells

    The "-head" suffix is an old equivalent to "-hood." (The only other English word I am aware of that still uses this archaism is "maidenhead.")

    Since both "-hood" and "-ness" denote a quality or state, "Godhead" (which you approve) and "godness" (which you disapprove) are, in fact, synonyms.

    And while we are on the topic of Bible verses in the NASB that affirm the deity of Christ, here are several unambiguous ones.

    • John 5:17-18. Jesus is not afraid to equate himself with God. If the Jews had misunderstood this, he could have corrected them.
    • John 8:58-59. Jesus declares himself to be "I am," the proper name of God as revealed to Moses at the burning bush. Again, the Jews understood his intention, hence their attempt to stone him for blasphemy.
    • John 20:27-29. Thomas explicitly affirms that Jesus is Lord and God. Jesus blesses him, because he has spoken the truth.
    • Acts 20:28. Paul affirms the deity of Christ when he says God purchased the church with his own blood.
    • Colossians 1:16. Christ created all things, which Genesis 1:1 says God did. Do the math.
    • Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both these verses unambiguously declare Jesus Christ to be both God and Saviour.

    So here is another KJV-only fable we can put to bed. You can hardly accuse a Bible translation of denying Christ's deity when it practically shouts it from the rooftops.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:55:48 PM PDT · 113 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    "This subject is completely a matter of faith. Those that reject or do not possess a particular preference for the King James Bible are welcome to visit and participate - but this is not an argument thread. I am not responsible to convince anyone against his or her will."

    Not a caucused thread, and as someone without "a particular preference for the King James Bible," I am accepting your welcome and participating. By definition, an open thread.

    Since it was you who introduced the fairy story about Westcott and Hort being "Satan-worshipers," you yourself moved the thread from the realm of complete faith into the realm of supposed facts. "This is not an argument thread"? Fine, don't tell whoppers, and I won't argue with 'em.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:40:01 PM PDT · 107 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    I can not believe that the Lord Jesus is pleased with your snippy attitude . . .

    As I said, your opinion makes no difference to me.

    I fully understand that you are not a KJB-onlyist - so why you believe it is necessary for you to post on our thread is rather beyond my understanding.

    You said yourself it was an open thread, so don't get your nose out of joint because you don't like what other participants have to say. Don't like opposing views? Go start a blog.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:30:10 PM PDT · 103 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    "Yes they really do think you are that stupid"

    As I said, I called no one stupid. I said someone else thought they were stupid. The fact that you apparently think this deliberate twisting of my words is persuasive, only proves my point, so thanks for that.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:25:31 PM PDT · 102 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    You stated she was a virgin at the time

    Oh, good grief. At the time of Jesus' conception. I specifically used those words, "Jesus' conception."

    First an inept reading of Arthur Westcott on the Ghostlie Guild, and now this. I'm seriously beginning to doubt your relationship with the English language. Perhaps you are not the most qualified person to be evaluating Bible translations.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:20:47 PM PDT · 100 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    Committed Christians generally do not call other Christians stupid.

    I didn't call anyone stupid.

    I’m seriously doubting your relationship with Christ.

    And your opinion should concern me, why, exactly?

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:17:10 PM PDT · 98 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    No, she was not a virgin at the time . . . Jesus had brothers and sisters.

    Are you saying Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was conceived? Because I asked whether you thought she had forgotten that she was, and I would refer not to think that you were trying to dishonestly spin my remarks in the worst possible light.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:11:16 PM PDT · 96 of 173
    RansomOttawa to kosciusko51
    Luke 1, which comes before Luke 2 (funny that), clearly makes the case for the virgin birth.

    Pay no attention to the page you read just a minute earlier!

    Yes, they really think you are that stupid.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:05:00 PM PDT · 94 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    Mary was in error when she stated “thy father and I sought thee . . .” (Luke 2:49)

    LOL, really? So Mary forgot that Jesus' conception was miraculous, she was still a virgin at the time, and Joseph wasn't really his biological father?

    Pull the other one.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 7:00:21 PM PDT · 93 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    We’ll eventually get to a fuller discussion of Westcott and Hort

    Excellent. Debunking KJV-only fables is actually fun, and I'm sure you'll be providing several examples.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 12:44:28 PM PDT · 79 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    Either you have faith in a God that is able to preserve His Word or you do not

    Why must I have faith that if God is able to preserve his Word, he must have done so in the KJV? Faith means taking someone at his word, and yet we have no word from God that this is so. Which means your faith in KJV-onlyism is a blind one.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 12:34:49 PM PDT · 78 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    My 'evaluation' of them is based upon the testimony of Westcott’s son . . . My dad was a "spiritualist" and founded the "ghost Society."

    Well, then, let's just evaluate your "evaluation," shall we?

    Here is what Arthur Westcott writes about his father's involvement in the "Ghostlie Guild":

    [Westcott] devoted himself with ardour, during his last year at Cambridge, to two new societies. One of these was the "Ghostlie Guild" and the other the "Choral Society." The "Ghostlie Guild" . . . was established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effect. Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings, and their inquiry circular was originally drawn up by him. He also received a number of communications in response. Outsiders, failing to appreciate the fact that these investigators were in earnest and only seeking the truth, called them the "Cock and Bull Club." (Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1 [London: Macmillan, 1901], 117, emphasis added)

    Contrary to the KJV-only claim, the purpose of the Ghostlie Guild was not to engage in occultism, but to investigate supernatural claims with the intent of determining whether they were true. Even if they turned out to be bunk, Westcott believed there might be some scientific value to the investigation (Ibid., 118).

    Does this make Westcott an occultist? Obviously not. There is obviously a major categorical difference between investigating ghost stories, and calling the ghosts up oneself.

    Second, Arthur Westcott does not in fact call his father a "spiritualist." Remarking on his father's waning interest in the subject, he says it was "not altogether, I believe, from want of faith in what, for lack of a better name, one must call Spiritualism" (Ibid., 119). He is using the term in a non-standard way: not the religious craze that gave rise to "psychics" and seances, but clearly a broader belief in supernatural events. Moreover, he says the real reason B. F. Westcott gave up his involvement was simply that "he was seriously convinved that such investigations led to no good."

    The elder Westcott himself said, some years later:

    Many years ago I had occasion to investigate "spiritualistic" phenomena with some care, and I came to a clear conclusion. . . . It appears to me that in this, as in all spiritual questions, Holy Scripture is our supreme guide. I observe, then, that while spiritual ministries are constantly recorded in the Bible, there is not the faintest encouragement to seek them. The case, indeed, is far otherwise. I cannot, therefore, but regard every voluntary approach to beings such as those who are supposed to hold communication with men through mediums as unlawful and perilous. I find in the fact of the Incarnation all that man (so far as I can see) requires for life and hope. (B. F. Westcott, "The Response to The Appeal," Borderland, Vol. 1 no. 1 [July 1893], 11 [source]).

    In other words, far from being some sort of committed occultist, Westcott makes two key Christian affirmations: of the sufficiency of Scripture for all spiritual questions, and the sufficiency of Christ for hope beyond the grave.

    Additionally, that same Web page notes that Westcott was invited by his friend Edward Benson to join the Ghostlie Guild, so the claim that Westcott "founded" the club is also inaccurate.

    So now we know how well you've done your homework. Obviously you have spent no time reading primary sources, and have merely regurgitated false quote-mined claims from Ruckmanites. Amazingly, this is the most substantive claim made against Westcott and Hort, and yet it is easily shown to be a complete fiction.

  • Introduction Thread to "Final Authority"

    06/28/2017 8:41:02 AM PDT · 73 of 173
    RansomOttawa to Pilgrim's Progress
    And Westcott and Hort are honest men? Really?

    While they weren't fundamentalist Baptists, they weren't "Satan-worshipers," to use your dishonest and loaded phrase, or anything close. I never saw a KJV-only critique of Westcott and Hort that didn't brazenly lie about them.

    Perhaps your evaluation of them is different, but I doubt you do anything other than recycle other KJV-only falsehoods.