...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce? (2)

[Opdrey]

Jacobean English disappeared at the Tower of Babel.

This is a confusing point. I understand from your moniker that the KJV is probably the only "correct" version of the Bible per your sect's beliefs. But given that we know EXACTLY where the KJV came from and how it was constructed, why is there a need for Jacobean English to have existed back in the time before the Tower of Babel?

It then began a slow comeback until it culminated in the 17th century; just long enough to produce the King James Bible.

No, we know exactly how the "Secretaries" appointed by King James did their work. We know they utilized as much "ancient" (if not always original) text material as possible which they then translated into English.

I am still struggling to understand why you need to make up this point out of whole cloth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am still struggling to understand why you need to make up this point out of whole cloth.

It's really quite simple.

Let me ask you a question.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Question: What specifically was that language?

 

[Opdrey]

It's really quite simple.

Let me ask you a question.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

Question: What specifically was that language?

Obviously I don't believe Genesis 11:1 to be literal truth but we have a really clear idea of where Jacobean English came from. It wasn't just "rediscovered".

Again, I'm curious why you would need to make up a story out of whole cloth that is neither in the Bible nor matches the facts on the ground about what we know of the origins of the English language?

I see no theological value and, in fact, if I recall the Bible in Deuteronomy 4:2 explicitly suggests that this is not allowed: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

I know it isn't exactly the same thing since the Bible is silent on the nature of the one-world language myth but it does kind of feel like an arbitrary addition without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously I don't believe Genesis 11:1 to be literal truth ...

Fair enough.

Then it sounds to me like ANY language would bewilder you.

Would you be less bewildered if I would have said "German"?

... but we have a really clear idea of where Jacobean English came from.

Yes -- from some Indo-European line.

It wasn't just "rediscovered".

Unless it was.

QV: Post 47

 

[Opdrey]

Fair enough.

Then it sounds to me like ANY language would bewilder you.

Would you be less bewildered if I would have said "German"?Yes -- from some Indo-European line.Unless it was.

QV: Post 47

Boy it sure sounds to me like you are adding to the Bible. So much of this "purification" thing sounds completely made up. No offense, I understand it is probably integral to your sect's faith and on it all truth hinges. It also kind of sounds like one version of the Bible is the final "legally binding" version. As if the Pharisees had lovingly gone over every jot and tittle.

Not unlike the Muslims who feel that the only way to learn the Quran is to read it in the original Arabic.

A more rational view is that we know who was responsible for the KJV translation, a lot of what they had to work with, etc. So it's pretty straightforward just another work of humans to translate a pre-existing work. But if it must be imbued with mystical factors that elevate it to the proper level of Pharasaic oversight then I guess it's good.

Personally I wish God could speak to people in a language they are familiar with because the information is pretty important. But I guess if it's important not to wind up roasting in hell for eternity it's up to the flawed humans to figure out which is the ONE AND TRUE translation.

God seems pretty limited. He didn't seem to understand people would think that the rocks told us something real about earth's history. He didn't seem to realize that languages would change. It seems at every turn He's found excellent ways to hide Himself from people.

An all-knowing being with limitations coupled with an imperfect set of beings makes for a higher likelihood of a lot of folks being damned to hell for not getting it right.

Kind of like if I came up with arbitrary rules for my dog that I communicated to him in Morse code and then beating him senseless whenever he failed to follow those rules. That version of God REALLY DOES NOT COMPUTE for me. But some people seem to value it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind of like if I came up with arbitrary rules for my dog that I communicated to him in Morse code and then beating him senseless whenever he failed to follow those rules. That version of God REALLY DOES NOT COMPUTE for me. But some people seem to value it.

Anything to keep yourself seeking, huh?

What's next on your list to denigrate? the Koran? the Bhagavad Gita? the Book of Mormon?

Or maybe the AV2022 King James Mc...

Nah -- skip that one.

 

[Opdrey]

Anything to keep yourself seeking, huh?

I am seeking a theological reasonable version of God. Not the kind who hides anything in any way.

What's next on your list to denigrate? the Koran? the Bhagavad Gita? the Book of Mormon?

Why do you say "denigrate"? I think I've been clear that there are some good parts of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am seeking a theological reasonable version of God. Not the kind who hides anything in any way.

The day God has to hide from anyone seeking Him is the day science stops maiming and killing people with her "mistakes."

 

[Opdrey]

The day God has to hide from anyone seeking Him is the day science stops maiming and killing people with her "mistakes."

I honestly can't make sense of this sentence. Sorry.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Anything to keep yourself seeking, huh?

What's next on your list to denigrate? the Koran? the Bhagavad Gita? the Book of Mormon?

Or maybe the AV2022 King James Mc...

Nah -- skip that one.

I mean, really, who wouldn't immediately want to become a Christian if they were told that if they don't believe that antedeluvian people spoke early modern English, and that the KJV is the only true Bible, and that if they don't God is going to punch them in the face for all eternity.

Does Jesus Christ and His Gospel even exist in your version of Christianity AV?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I honestly can't make sense of this sentence. Sorry.

He's saying that the day God hides from being found by seeking is the day hell freezes over. But instead of saying hell freezes over, he decided to take a jab at "science" as some kind of personalized moral entity.

In other words, it doesn't really become any better even after translating it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sjastro]

I honestly can't make sense of this sentence. Sorry.

Anti-intellectualism is the motivation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean, really, who wouldn't immediately want to become a Christian if they were told that if they don't believe that antedeluvian people spoke early modern English, and that the KJV is the only true Bible, and that if they don't God is going to punch them in the face for all eternity.

We give unbelievers what's called the Roman's Road to Salvation.

On the Internet however, unbelievers ask deep theological questions.

Does Jesus Christ and His Gospel even exist in your version of Christianity AV?

That was kinda cheap, wasn't it, Lutheran?

Let's see you answer half the questions I get.

What's your version of the Great Commission?

 

[Opdrey]

We give unbelievers what's called the Roman's Road to Salvation.

Oooh, what is that? That sounds interesting! Especially when it is salvation offered by mere humans!

On the Internet however, unbelievers ask deep theological questions.

To be quite fair many unbelievers are as well versed in the Bible as the most pious and they have been asking these questions since long before the internet appeared.

And even before the internet, people of faith hated the questions, feared the questions. Denigrated the questions.

Yet they remain.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be quite fair many unbelievers are as well versed in the Bible as the most pious and they have been asking these questions since long before the internet appeared.

Ask away.

I invite your questions, and I'll do my best to answer them according to a set of standards I have.

I'm not shy.

My forte is Creationism, and my minor forte is the Flood.

I've even been asked what God is made of.

You have to define what God is made of before you can put forth your apple challenge.

Element 404 = Unobtainium.

 

[Opdrey]

Ask away.

It's usually more fun to talk theology with people for whom it can be more adequately discussed. Talking theology with people who know the absolute and perfected truth can get taxing at times.

I invite your questions, and I'll do my best to answer them according to a set of standards I have.

I think I'm now relatively well acquainted with your standards.

My forte is Creationism, and my minor forte is the Flood.

It's good to have specializations. But your forte on the Flood is likely wholly uninformed by what people like geologists know about flood deposits. That's why you have to make up the story of God cleaning it all up. Even though no such thing is in the Bible. (Do you know why? Because the ancient scribes who wrote the various Noachian narratives knew only slightly less geology than you do!)

That's the apparent standard: if you don't like what science says you come up with just-so stories but only if the Bible doesn't say anything directly contradicting your story.

I mean no offense in stating this. Just stating what I see. It is perfectly acceptable that people have faith of things that they can't provide proof of. That's what a religion is.

 

[ViaCrucis]

We give unbelievers what's called the Roman's Road to Salvation.

Not I. Though I fully believe that St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is, arguably, some of the best articulated theology and provides a very good and thorough treatment of Law and Gospel.

On the Internet however, unbelievers ask deep theological questions.

That was kinda cheap, wasn't it, Lutheran?

It wasn't intended to be a low blow. It's a critique of the fact that you don't actually preach Jesus Christ, Him crucified and risen from the dead, and the Gospel of our salvation in Him. Instead, you preach KJV-onlyism and a rejection of science.

Let's see you answer half the questions I get.

What's your version of the Great Commission?

I don't have a version of the Great Commission, it's just what Jesus Himself instructed of His Apostles and Church: To preach the Gospel, make disciples, to administer Christian baptism, and to instruct and teach.

So the Church has done just that: A preaching of the Gospel and the administering of the Sacraments, and teaching, instructing--and through these means the Holy Spirit works and accomplishes His work: Regeneration, justification, sanctification, et al.

But in order to preach the Gospel it's important to actually preach the Gospel, and not preach something else that isn't the Gospel.

"Become a Christian or burn in hell" is not the Gospel.

The Gospel is good news. If what you're preaching isn't GOOD news then it can't be called "gospel". And in order for it to be called the GOOD news of JESUS CHRIST, it has to be about who Jesus is and what Jesus has done, and what we receive and have in Jesus and from Jesus. Thus the Gospel is preached for faith, as St. Paul says in Romans 10:17, "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ"; as faith comes not from ourselves, but from outside of ourselves--from God, as the gift and work of God; as St. Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works so that no one may boast."

The word which is from God in Christ, the Gospel, for sinners; that the sinner might hear of the work and gift of God which is in Christ for sinners: forgiveness, a clean conscience before God, righteousness from God, peace with God through these things in Jesus; and the promise of eternal life, even the very resurrection of the dead when in the end God brings all things to completion, renews all things, and sets all things to rights.

The good news is not that we are all going to hell unless we sign on the dotted line on some contract from God, as though we have to make some kind of transaction with the Almighty in order to avoid eternal punishment. That's not the Gospel, that's extortion.

God is not the one who holds men hostage and demands ransom.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Not I. Though I fully believe that St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is, arguably, some of the best articulated theology and provides a very good and thorough treatment of Law and Gospel.

The book of Romans compares Jesus to the Law, and shows Jesus the only way.

The book of Hebrews compares Jesus to the Levitical Priesthood, and shows Jesus the only way.

It wasn't intended to be a low blow. It's a critique of the fact that you don't actually preach Jesus Christ, Him crucified and risen from the dead, and the Gospel of our salvation in Him.

In Physical & Life Sciences ???

 

[ViaCrucis]

The book of Romans compares Jesus to the Law, and shows Jesus the only way.

The book of Hebrews compares Jesus to the Levitical Priesthood, and shows Jesus the only way.

I'm not going to deviate from this thread just to provide an exegetical analysis of Romans and Hebrews.

However I have provided brief exegetical overviews in the past, here's an example from 2017 in addressing the Epistle to the Romans:

Love in Romans

In Physical & Life Sciences ???

If I saw someone butchering and making a mockery of the Christian religion by shouting nonsense at people trying to buy bananas in the produce section of a supermarket I'd probably say something in that situation too.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TLK Valentine]

In Physical & Life Sciences ???

If you're going to use the Bible as your bludgeon, expect to be called out when you bungle it... even in Physical and Life Sciences.