LittleNipper
Contributor
- Mar 9, 2005
- 9,011
- 174
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Show me where the various versions of the Bible disagree.... List the odd verse or two...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Show me where the various versions of the Bible disagree.... List the odd verse or two...Which is why there is only one version of the Bible and no competing religions. Wait...that's not right.
Okay punk, I'll lighten up ----- someone get me a switch.Lighten up a little, kiddo. It's called a joke.
I believe that he was trying to point out that there are many many different holy books. No two seem to be able to agree on a definition of God.Show me where the various versions of the Bible disagree.... List the odd verse or two...
Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition. The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.Which is why there is only one version of the Bible and no competing religions. Wait...that's not right.
Why don't you prove that the "founding fathers" held to BIBLICAL INERRANCY and to literal interpretation like you do.Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition. The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.
Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.I believe that he was trying to point out that there are many many different holy books. No two seem to be able to agree on a definition of God.
Also, Aron-Ra did a good job of pointing out all of the Gnostic gospels that were cut out of the Bible for various odd reasons.
Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.
Ecclesiastes 7:11
Wisdom is a shelter as is money a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is this; that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor.
Look to the writings of John Wesley and Martin Luther.Why don't you prove that the "founding fathers" held to BIBLICAL INERRANCY and to literal interpretation like you do.
Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition.
The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.
Democrats are only ever correct when they are out of office.Thank you for thoughtfully proving an example.
Democrats are only ever correct when they are out of office.
Democrats are only ever correct when they are out of office.
Democrats also said that when Lincoln was elected!Since Democrats claim that Republicans will ruin the country this seems to make sense.
Ask a Moslem what he reads. You might be surprised.News to me. Someone forgot to tell me that Muslims are invisible.
Speaking of founding fathers, why don't you ask the real founding fathers, the Jews, why Jesus is not the Messiah nor the son of God.
That covers the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Now how about those Gnostic texts that were found at Nag Hammadi and were authenticated to be from the first century?Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.
Ok, I might have avoided confusion if I hadn't capitalised the MethodHERE is an oldie I used to use a lot.
Oh, don't worry. Chances are you understand it better than he does.Ok, I might have avoided confusion if I hadn't capitalised the MethodI'm perfectly aware it's more complicated than hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. Y'know, I'm studying it at university. I've already done some Theory of Knowledge in high school. Last year I took a course called Science Methods. I'm not quite ignorant about this stuff , you see . I often think "attitude" would be a more correct term than "method", but anyway, I hope I've managed to clear the misunderstanding.
That's not true. Innerancy as practiced by fundamentalist protestants is a relatively new invention. It's an artifact of the modernist scientific thinking of the time, applied to a non-modernist text. Like all people, interpretation of an ambiguous text is driven partially by their environment, and fundamentalist leaders were living in a time when science promised to solve all our problems (and actually had a decent track record with many of them). So it was only natural to try apply a successful method (scientific reading) to their pet view of the truth.Unless you are speeking of Mormons or JWs, I see no real competition. The focal issue has always been BIBLICAL INERRANCY. Most denominations once held to that--------historically. Now, of course some have added value judgments of theri own. That only means that they presently disagree with their founding fathers.
Cheap immitations of GOD's WORD. They either have an over abundance of "thee's and thou's" or they are written in poetic nonsense for some beatniks in Greewich Village to fawn over.
In the example you described, your reason for trusting the Bible is because based on your observations of the physical world, the Bible seems to be accurately describing it. What Im saying is that if this is your reason for trusting the Bible, then when you see an example of the Bible appearing to condtradict the physical world, then that isby definitionsomething that makes your reason for trusting the Bible weaker.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?