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.
The Apocrypha books are not added for good reason.
It can’t be literally true that death came from sin. It’s obvious that humanity never developed as a species designed to live forever, and that basic design was frozen well before there were any humans around to sin.
So it can change as long as there's a good enough theological or linguistic reason, then. Well that makes a lot more sense! Hardly something to go to hell over.
I agree but a I doubt others here do.
Not to mention that countless Christian scribes and translators who added, removed, altered, and edited the Bible throughout the entire last two thousand years. Not a single book of the Bible hasn't seen textual corruption, both accidental and intentional, a lot of which is still in use.Oof, Protestants are going to be in a rough spot what with marking the Deuterocanonical books as Apocryphal hereby enabling their Bibles to be reduced to 66 books.
This is historical revisionism. The "Roman Catholic Church", didn't exist for centuries. By the time it came into being (primarily through the schism from the Eastern Church), Christians had been using those scriptures for centuries. This is because the vast majority of Christians (West and East) were using the Septuagint, which contained those books. To claim otherwise is anti-Catholic propaganda, not historical fact. The Catholics didn't add them. Protestants removed them.The Apocrypha was added by the Roman Catholic Church.
This is historical revisionism. The "Roman Catholic Church", didn't exist for centuries. By the time it came into being (primarily through the schism from the Eastern Church), Christians had been using those scriptures for centuries. This is because the vast majority of Christians (West and East) were using the Septuagint, which contained those books. To claim otherwise is anti-Catholic propaganda, not historical fact. The Catholics didn't add them. Protestants removed them.
Not to mention that countless Christian scribes and translators who added, removed, altered, and edited the Bible throughout the entire last two thousand years. Not a single book of the Bible hasn't seen textual corruption, both accidental and intentional, a lot of which is still in use.
What are you even talking about? The Bible comes from manuscripts which are exact copies. They're not added, removed, nor altered. What kind of nonsense have you been reading? It's not difficult to learn about the two main manuscript lineages and why the King James Bible we have today is the most accurate. Stop with the rumours,lies, and falsehoods already.
When I was a believer, my faith wasn't static. For much of my life I did believe that salvation depended on grace, plus avoiding certain sins (as most Christians today seem to believe). At the very least one should commit different sins each time (i.e. "fall in sin") rather than doing the same ones over and over (i.e. "living in sin")This is where the misunderstanding lays. You're not sent to hell because you sinned. You're sent to hell because you're an enemy of God. All Christians sin, it's in our nature to sin, we're born sinners. We sin, we repent, wash rinse, and repeat. A Christian recognizes the one and only God of the Bible and follows and accepts Jesus and what he did on the cross. I thought you used to be a Christian, how can you not know this?
1. The KJV is not the most accurate version today. It is flowery and poetic, but has hundreds of errors.What are you even talking about? The Bible comes from manuscripts which are exact copies. They're not added, removed, nor altered. What kind of nonsense have you been reading? It's not difficult to learn about the two main manuscript lineages and why the King James Bible we have today is the most accurate. Stop with the rumours,lies, and falsehoods already.
I suppose in fairness to the Christians who encouraged you to abstain from AC/DC, it seems that music can affect a person's state of mind, and the state of mind created by AC/DC is not particularly spiritual. Of course some contemporary Christian music isn't particularly spiritual either.When I was a believer, my faith wasn't static. For much of my life I did believe that salvation depended on grace, plus avoiding certain sins (as most Christians today seem to believe). At the very least one should commit different sins each time (i.e. "fall in sin") rather than doing the same ones over and over (i.e. "living in sin")
I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to choose between heaven or my record collection, and at the time I sadly believed it. But whether or not people believe a rock record itself will send them to hell, or merely increase their chances of going there, the net result is the same: you can't be a (true) Christian and listen to certain bands. Or certain instruments. Or breathe in a particular way, or arrange your limbs in a certain fashion. In other words, Satan has the ownership of certain frequencies, bodily movements, rhythms etc.
Just for the record, the state of emptiness meditation is just the opposite of a trance. They are two completely different things.Yes especially the breathing exercises. They're meant to put you in a state of trance, (Buddhists call it emptiness meditation)
I guess that's a matter of taste. I often have what I'd call spiritual (not in the sens that it's supernatural) experiences when I listen to music, and for me it can happen with AC/DC as well as with Mozart. Though it's more likely with the latter.I suppose in fairness to the Christians who encouraged you to abstain from AC/DC, it seems that music can affect a person's state of mind, and the state of mind created by AC/DC is not particularly spiritual. Of course some contemporary Christian music isn't particularly spiritual either.
I don't know, and don't think about those things you mentioned.Am I summarizing that wrong?
and 181You should read Bruce Metzger
https://confessionalbibliology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/TheTextOfNewTestament4thEdit.pdf
Especially pages 250 to 280.
When I was a believer, my faith wasn't static. For much of my life I did believe that salvation depended on grace, plus avoiding certain sins (as most Christians today seem to believe). At the very least one should commit different sins each time (i.e. "fall in sin") rather than doing the same ones over and over (i.e. "living in sin")
I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to choose between heaven or my record collection, and at the time I sadly believed it. But whether or not people believe a rock record itself will send them to hell, or merely increase their chances of going there, the net result is the same: you can't be a (true) Christian and listen to certain bands. Or certain instruments. Or breathe in a particular way, or arrange your limbs in a certain fashion. In other words, Satan has the ownership of certain frequencies, bodily movements, rhythms etc.
Just for the record, the state of emptiness meditation is just the opposite of a trance. They are two completely different things.
It's called emptiness not because the mind is empty but because it's not hanging onto presuppositions we usually add to experience in order to make sense of it: the stories and worldviews we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in.
1. The KJV is not the most accurate version today. It is flowery and poetic, but has hundreds of errors.
2. I've been keeping up with textual criticism. If you have read even a single book on the subject, you would know that "exact copies" is plainly untrue. You even acknowledge there are "two main manuscript traditions". Which is it? What we have today is "exact"ly the same as the originals, or there are variant "manuscript traditions"? Even the most conservative Christian scholars acknowledge there are tens of thousands of differences in the NT manuscripts alone. Some 90+% of those are minor misspellings and grammatically-acceptable syntax variants. Some of the remainder are text deletion, repetition, and misplacement. Past that, there are several deliberate corruptions of the NT, including interpolations and revisions. (Ex: Mark's long ending, the adulterous woman in John, the anti-Semitic remark in 1 Thessalonians.) Then there's the OT, where the MT, LXX, SP, and DSS contain thousands more differences, many of them also intentional. (Ex: MT Jeremiah rearranges several chapters and inserts whole paragraphs.) That's before even getting to pseudepigrapha in the NT. Saying the Bible we have today is based on "exact copies" is just not compatible with the evidence we have. It's a willful burying of one's head in the sand to avoid the reality that biblical manuscripts are extremely messy and contradictory.
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?