I think that to have a name of the world's nation in the name of the church and the name of a king in the name of the Bible seems to be quite an extremism of its own ;-)To people like yourself, we're Roman Catholics minus a Pope, and to Catholics we're as Reformed as any Protestant is.
I rather like that we stand, almost alone, for the middle ground of historic Christianity, not falling off into any extremism on either side.
That is funny. I cannot imagine what additional trivialities might be considered by other people who are not particularly informed about the church to be "extremism!"I think that to have a name of the world's nation in the name of the church and the name of a king in the name of the Bible seems to be quite an extremism of its own ;-)
You know how it is. What is a trivial thing for one can be an important thing for others.That is funny. I cannot imagine what other trivialities might be considered by other people who are not particularly informed about the4 church to be "extremism!"
But it may help you if I point out that, in many countries, the actual name of the church does not have any denominational identifier. It's just The Church of ___, like the Church of England which has been much discussed in the last several days around here.. Do you see the name of any denomination there? No.
I thought the term "denomination" only referred to Protestantism anyway. Catholics don't consider themselves to be one of the denominations. They consider themselves to be the Church. (capital C) Everyone else left the Church, according to them. (even Eastern Orthodox) As I understand it.That is funny. I cannot imagine what additional trivialities might be considered by other people who are not particularly informed about the church to be "extremism!"
But it may help you if I point out that, in many countries, the actual name of the church does not have any denominational identifier. It's just The Church of ___, like the Church of England which has been much discussed in the last several days around here. Or the Diocese of ____ (location). Do you see the name of any denomination there? No. And not many other denominations can say the same about themselves.
Everything is biased. Even the Bible. Which was translated by Damnationists. But I plan to continue using it. Though I consider the source.I meant the article on universalism was biased, as it was written by a universalist.
In normal use, it applies to any specific and organized branch of Christianity. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices."I thought the term "denomination" only referred to Protestantism anyway.
That's true. Many Catholics would, not surprisingly, prefer if everyone referred to their church as "The Church" or something else that suggests the idea that it's the only real one.Catholics don't consider themselves to be one of the denominations. They consider themselves to be the Church.
You're right.Everyone else left the Church, according to them. (even Eastern Orthodox) As I understand it.
In normal use, it applies to any specific and organized branch of Christianity. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as "a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices."
Sometimes it is asked if divisions within particular "families of faith" should be distinguished by that term. For instance, are the United Methodist Church and the Free Methodist Church different denominations or is Methodism the denomination and there is some better term for the difference between these two varieties of Methodists? The dictionary definition would say the answer is the first of these two.
That's true. Many Catholics would, not surprisingly, prefer if everyone referred to their church as "The Church" or something else that suggests the idea that it's the only real one.
Higher-ups in the church's leadership often call other Christian denominations "ecclesial communities," not even affording them recognition as a "church."
So each community or each individual can choose to say what he thinks best, but "denomination" is widely accepted as appropriate for all of them.
You're right.
Thank you but Truthfully making rhetorical statements on this site isn’t real cool either.
You are correct.... Which is why I cannot get overly fanatical over the KJV. I would, though, watch the other translations as well. In Acts 1:8 the TLB (Living Bible) restricts the power only to testify....
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. - Acts 1:8 KJV
But when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power to testify about me with great effect, to the people in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth, about my death and resurrection.” - Acts 1:8 (TLB)
Power in the Greek is dynamis, in which the Strongs Concordance does not restrict only to testify....
δύναμις dýnamis, doo'-nam-is; from G1410; force (literally or figuratively); specially, miraculous power (usually by implication, a miracle itself):—ability, abundance, meaning, might(-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle(-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work
So... The Living Bible effectively watered that passage down greatly.
(old believer to new convert) "Have you been washed in the blood, brother?"That is funny. I cannot imagine what additional trivialities might be considered by other people who are not particularly informed about the church to be "extremism!"
The canon was in fact closed in the fourth century, however special revelation is still available through the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that there is something that should be added to the Bible? If so what is it and what authority would there be for considering it Scripture?Glad to hear that you disagree with Cessationism.
The idea of a "closed canon" infers that the New Testament was "written" like a book that ended with the last chapter being the book of Revelation. When in fact the canon was a collection of books assembled and voted on in the fourth century. The term "closed canon" is also used to claim that the revelation of God to humankind is complete and that there is no new revelation that can come from God now. (a gag order on God speaking today)
The original question I was trying to answer was: is there Scriptural support for any Bible translation? My thinking was that the quotes that Jesus made from the Septuagint would be support for it. It was accepted by Jesus. I agree that there is not perfect translation.Obviously the Masoretic texts were copied from earlier Hebrew texts that did exist in the time of Jesus.
And when we look at NT quotes of the OT, some of them are recognisably the Septuagint, and some of them are something that looks exactly like the Masoretic.
The original question I was trying to answer was: is there Scriptural support for any Bible translation? My thinking was that the quotes that Jesus made from the Septuagint would be support for it. It was accepted by Jesus. I agree that there is not perfect translation.
Who has He spoken to and what has he said. Can you can give specific examplesGod doesn't play by our rules. He speaks when he wants and through whom he chooses. He even chose a donkey once to speak to Balaam. Who are we to claim what is more or less "authoritative"?
No, I believe the Bible should be left as is.The canon was in fact closed in the fourth century, however special revelation is still available through the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that there is something that should be added to the Bible? If so what is it and what authority would there be for considering it Scripture?