It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biblical fundamentalism: Is it idolatry, bibliolatry?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ScienceDada
 
I'm in the "KJV" only crowd because of proven falsehoods in the other works.


When I did Old Testament bible translation, I compared my work with other translations, and the NASB was almost word for word the same as my work. Granted, it was a "wooden" translation, but it was correct.

When you do your scripture translations, did you have the same experience with the KJV?




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ScienceDada
 
I'm in the "KJV" only crowd because of proven falsehoods in the other works.


When I did Old Testament bible translation, I compared my work with other translations, and the NASB was almost word for word the same as my work. Granted, it was a "wooden" translation, but it was correct.

When you do your scripture translations, did you have the same experience with the KJV?
Hey cool, I just noticed you are in Indiana, what part? Indianapolis here myself. Well, I do now believe you are a born again believer in our Lord, but I DO NOT think there is a good translation other than the KJV, my mother uses the NASB and I'm trying to persuade her. We as Christians get attached to our Bibles I agree, but when I learned that there were some really shady areas about the modern translations I immediately bought a KJV bible. I don't want false doctrine to enter my brain. Take a peek at this webpage and let me know what your honest Christian opinion is of what it says.

www.justbible.org...



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I found the "preferences" settings at Biblegateway.com and set it so the NASV always comes up, instead of the NIV. I like reading the same version because it makes it easier to find that verse later because I know which words to put in the search.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I bought a Bible, years ago... It came in a box and that is how I carry it around, like when I go to church. I hope to have it for life, so I want to keep it safe from damage


Thanks for that input. I think that most of this thread is based on the figurative idea that many fundamentalists have, in that because they have a Bible that they have God all figured out and have all the answers for life.

I am sure your Bible is very nice without any satanic symbols on the front, and I doubt that anyone would fault you for keeping it in a box



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


hello

in my mind there is no way anyone can have God figured out, I have heard people say "no one knows more about the bible than i do" well
thats just madness.

someone who has been a Christian can come to an understanding, by the grace of God, where as someone who has been a Christian for 50 years may not.

david



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by ScienceDada
 

in my mind there is no way anyone can have God figured out, I have heard people say "no one knows more about the bible than i do" well
thats just madness.


Nice pic. Is it supposed to be subliminal?

Knowing God and knowing your bible are not one-and-the-same. They don't even necessarily coincide (and that is even scripture). So search your scriptures... it is commanded that the traditions that the Apostles handed down by word be kept just as the traditions handed down by epistle.

Sola scriptura is not an Apostolic tradition. Sola scriptura is a tradition of men, a vain tradition. It is an attempt to confine God so that one can quantify Him (and thereby exert control). It is just like Protestant prayer, which follows the hypocritical holy incantation "Lord we just..." as in "Lord we just thank thee" or "Lord we just ask that you just help my daughter to see that you have a plan for her" (translated: my daughter is not living the way I want her to, so this is a good teaching moment to draw attention to that and lift myself up as holier-than-thou).

Protestants have many such traditions, invented by men in a vain attempt to correct the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church (the corrupt harlot that she is). In the process, they created a worse problem, the Protestant creature with 1000 heads. From the frying pan and into the fire you went, and traveling across continents to proselytize, only to make them twice the sons of Hell as yourselves.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


not subliminal just a favourite passage

david



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 



erase the pathological need to reconcile the Bible with your doctrine (I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Protestant doctrine is a tradition of men, despite vigorous protest otherwise) as if you had it all figured out and were sitting at the right hand of God. "Tradition" is an emotionally loaded word for the Protestant, which they have given the connotation of, "customs and doctrines that those nasty ol Catholics had, not THE BIBLE, like we have." This is propaganda. Granted, the Roman Catholic church had huge problems and the motivations behind the reformation were quite understandable.

I agree that we need to constantly re-asses our view of doctrine. I think that should come from controversy. That is what happens to me. I go about my life thinking everything I need to know, I have already been taught. When someone challenges you on part of your beliefs, that should be your opportunity to examine the basis of your beliefs, as you prepare your defense of them. But you still need to base it on the Bible because people are not going to accept, "My teacher told me so." as an argument.
As for traditions, there were traditions but were crushed out by centralized power's attempt to standardize Christianity. The legitimate traditions were replaced by the tradition of the roman Pontiff.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ScienceDada

As for traditions, there were traditions but were crushed out by centralized power's attempt to standardize Christianity. The legitimate traditions were replaced by the tradition of the roman Pontiff.


I know that this will probably invite many to flame me here. But it just didn't happen that way.

As much as the Roman Catholic Church tries to revise history and say that the Pope was the pontiff of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" this just is not so. This theory fails to account for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church, nor even the so-called Oriental Orthodox Churches. It is a commonly held misconception that the Roman Pontiff had this kind of power... but he simply did not. And when he tried to assert this kind of power, the Eastern Church rejected it and there was the great schism.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 



As much as the Roman Catholic Church tries to revise history and say that the Pope was the pontiff of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" this just is not so.

He was and is, in the territory that they control, the head of the Church.
They have always worked to expand their influince over all churches. Even in my church that was founded on being anti-catholic, they have had their agents in the highest positions for decades.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ScienceDada
He was and is, in the territory that they control, the head of the Church.
They have always worked to expand their influince over all churches. Even in my church that was founded on being anti-catholic, they have had their agents in the highest positions for decades.


Gotcha... thanks for that input. I suppose ATS is the place for it.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ScienceDada
There is also, especially amongst the Reformed tradition doctrines, that the Bible was written under inspiration (meaning that the Apostlic authors were acting as automatons in the process, with God sort of downloading the information into their brain and then transcribed onto paper).


Interesting comparison. Sounds a bit robotic but interesting anyway.

What I've come to know is that if any one of us have learned from him (the creator) and we repeat anything we have learned. That is inspired by him, if indeed it is.


Originally posted by ScienceDada
And their worship or communion is largely built around and upon their book, including: buying an expensive copy, putting it in a nice case, carrying it everywhere, reading from it very frequently, praying what it says, quoting from the text, thinking about it all the time.


Liken the book that the data is recorded on to a cd and liken the words to a program designed to run on windows. Liken the windows operating system (on which the words were designed to run) to faith.

If you take this windows program and present it to a mac or linux. Nothing will happen.

If mac or linux were to get the religious ambition to dissect this program attempting to run it. It may indeed run it but it will be perverted in some way or another.



Originally posted by ScienceDada
But then to go a step further, there is insistence that it is perfect and contains all that is necessary lo lead a Holy life.


Ahh, but if there is only one who is perfect and only one holy life and in him dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily (as the scripture says). How could man be so foolish as to liken him to a book?


Originally posted by ScienceDada
Ultimately, God is effectively contained within the book, or is ---or all practical purposes---the book itself. And since the meaning is often asserted according to the reader, that individual asserts that God and His truth are really the way the reader interpreted (therby controlling God in some warped sense).


Or is it that the book is simply made into a god? That would then separate the connection between the creator and the book ( to the one who has made it a god ). They then actually wouldn't be controlling the creator, but rather sculpting their god as they interpret him.


Originally posted by ScienceDada
this view of the Bible is somewhere between borderline and outright idolatry.


Agreed.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by WiseSheep

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Ultimately, God is effectively contained within the book, or is ---or all practical purposes---the book itself. And since the meaning is often asserted according to the reader, that individual asserts that God and His truth are really the way the reader interpreted (therby controlling God in some warped sense).


Or is it that the book is simply made into a god? That would then separate the connection between the creator and the book ( to the one who has made it a god ). They then actually wouldn't be controlling the creator, but rather sculpting their god as they interpret him.


Originally posted by ScienceDada
this view of the Bible is somewhere between borderline and outright idolatry.


Agreed.


Amongst many Reformed Protestants, expecially Calvinists, the Holy Spirit is almost completely marginalized. Effectively, the Holy Trinity then becomes "Father, Son, and Holy scriptures." Most fundamentalists have gone to even greater extremes, effectively creating a system where, since Christ was the word of God, and the Bible is the word of God, then the Bible is literally Christ in written form.

Also, if you ask someone if they are a Christian, who often do you hear, "I go to thus-and-thus church and I believe in the Bible" as the repsonse?

The idea that reading your Bible and evangelizing (recruiting) are the two "sacraments" of the Christian life is a foreign concept to most Christians throughout history, especially before the 1500's. This is a tradition of men and a relatively late one at that.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


Calvinists would most certainly not have a smaller view of the Holy Spirit. They would demand the essential position that He holds, especially with regard to salvation. Without the Holy Spirit then no one is saved for it is His work to convict of sin and lead people to Christ. This is the view historically expressed by Calvinists.

Reading the scriptures and evangelising are not some modern idea. It may be true that the RC church stopped the ordinary man from having the bible in their own language and evangelism wasn't their top priority. However, the bible in numerous places says that we should read the bible to learn about God and Christ tells us that our duty is to preach the gospel and evangelise. It would seem that that is what the early church went and did, and were persecuted for it.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


You make good sense.


The understanding I've come to recently is this.

The issue is religion. The christian religion. Much like muslim religion, you name it.

I can understand now why somewhat of a thinking atheist will lump them all together. Because they all are the same. As far as religion goes.

All of these are apart from the creator.

Imagine a man giving Paul's speech at Mars' Hill to what calls itself the church today. Would it not be to the same spirit?


If what calls itself the temple of GOD instates carnal temple worship. How is that anything other than a testimony of unbelief?

It's almost comparable to what calls itself Israel worshiping Israel. How can that be anything other than the same spirit?


Regarding the recruiting. If a man does succeed in converting another to the christian religion. Is their salvation unto the religion or unto the creator? Are they saved unto theologies, doctrines, laws, traditions, temples made with hands or born into the temple?


It certainly appears that all these things are related.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iggus
reply to post by ScienceDada

Calvinists would most certainly not have a smaller view of the Holy Spirit. They would demand the essential position that He holds, especially with regard to salvation. Without the Holy Spirit then no one is saved for it is His work to convict of sin and lead people to Christ. This is the view historically expressed by Calvinists.

All the words you are using are meaningless since you haven't defined them. Buzzwords like "salvation" and "conviction" are terms that Calvin and his fellow fascists make mean whatever they want to, just as Mormons do. Calvinism pins on the perfection of the Bible as molding God into the image that man wants to, all the while protesting and claiming to be "scriptural." But there is one huge gaping hole in that Reformation theology---the Bible was not a set canon in the Early Church, and it was the Apostolic Tradition that was the basis for Christianity and the Church, not the scriptures alone.

Furthermore, the scriptures alone cannot produce perfect doctrine, as is clearly demonstrated by the mess that is the Reformed tradition. Sincere individuals look at the same scriptures and draw wildly different conclusions. At that point, the reformed always draw on an extra-scriptural source for their doctrine; either that is Church tradition, or cultural context and original languages, or logical deduction. As such, it is a hypocritical system.

There is hardly a more well-conceived and well-thought-through tradition as the Reformed faith, if the postulates/tenets are accepted. But alas, they are not valid, so it is revealed for what it is: a tradition of men.


Reading the scriptures and evangelising are not some modern idea.

Yes, but treating them as the sacraments of the faith are a new idea. It is not necessary that one read the scriptures nor recruit in order to be "saved" or be "real Christians." These notions are traditions of men and not of God.


It may be true that the RC church stopped the ordinary man from having the bible in their own language and evangelism wasn't their top priority. However, the bible in numerous places says that we should read the bible to learn about God and Christ tells us that our duty is to preach the gospel and evangelise. It would seem that that is what the early church went and did, and were persecuted for it.

Whatever.... your points are irrelevant to either the discussion topic or to reality.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


Amongst many Reformed Protestants, expecially Calvinists, the Holy Spirit is almost completely marginalized. Effectively, the Holy Trinity then becomes "Father, Son, and Holy scriptures." Most fundamentalists have gone to even greater extremes, effectively creating a system where, since Christ was the word of God, and the Bible is the word of God, then the Bible is literally Christ in written form.

Also, if you ask someone if they are a Christian, who often do you hear, "I go to thus-and-thus church and I believe in the Bible" as the repsonse?

The idea that reading your Bible and evangelizing (recruiting) are the two "sacraments" of the Christian life is a foreign concept to most Christians throughout history, especially before the 1500's. This is a tradition of men and a relatively late one at that.

I think you might have all that back-wards.
People did not read or have access to books, in general, back in early times.
They would have listened to people reading from their Christian writers when they went to church.
What do you think Jesus was doing, reading in the synagogues?
Now that most people can read and buy a Bible, we can do more of that sort of thing.
You need to remember that what allowed the Reformation to take place was the invention of printing.
So it may be coincidental that many people were reading the Bible, and that it corresponds with new churches coming up.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WiseSheep
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


You make good sense.


The understanding I've come to recently is this.

The issue is religion. The christian religion. Much like muslim religion, you name it... Is their salvation unto the religion or unto the creator? Are they saved unto theologies, doctrines, laws, traditions, temples made with hands or born into the temple?


That is a good question. As is commonly stated, nobody has a monopoly on the truth (especially the Reformed protestants).

Christ came to call the lost sheep of Israel, to build his Church, and to defeat the works of the devil. Christ did not come to write a book or start a recruitment campaign, nor to encourage religious circuses with holy rollers as sideshow freaks and scam artists.

I have found the Church, through much toil, blood, sweat, tears, and trembling. It is a living community who is indwelt with the spirit of God. It is a hospital for the ill condition of humanity. It promotes life and peace. It promotes spiritual growth and protection for the weak. It defends the truth which was revealed, and testifies to that truth in the midst of a wicked world. And it has preserved the scriptures that Protestants now have hijacked and made into an idol, especially the KJV-only types. We thank Christ for his mercy and patience, and for revealing this truth to those who seek it, but hiding it from those who are wise in their own eyes.

I also see that the hatred of hypocrisy, which was central to Christ's message (and we are to have his heart and his Spirit). What then is the true "religion"? To help widows and orphans in their distress, and remain undefiled by the world. The genuine walk before God in truth and humility is what he desires---mercy not sacrifice.

So, the hypocrites can all take their traditions of men---the 5 points of Calvinism, the 4 spiritual laws, fraudulent "speaking in tongues," selling of indulgences and Pope worship, and cults of personality---and put them on their resumes! I am sure it qualifies you to proselytize a multitude of hypocrites who will be twice the sons of hell as yourselves.

And the Muslims, they are just as bad, for they subjugate men made in the image of God, and kill God's people by the sword in the name of God. Buddhists -- they believe in nothingness, and the depth of nothing, which is nothing. They are empty shells who have denied by their vain philosophy their creator, who is someone. Shintoists -- is yet another worship of man. I could go on and on, but what is the point? You will know them by their works. But at the judgment, it will be abundantly clear that these count for nothing. They are just religions that are based on traditions of men and do not bear the fruit of repentance or have life in them.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by WiseSheep
 


It's actually reconciliation to God by His grace alone through that person's faith.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 



Apostolic Tradition that was the basis for Christianity and the Church, not the scriptures alone.


I'm not as learned as you are sir, but on this point I have to disagree. True, the apostles w charged to spread the "Word" of truth, but their sole purpose was to share the Truth as it was revealed by Jesus Christ.

Remember, sometimes "tradition" changed by revelation of God. Peter received a revelation that said man could eat unclean animals where they were forbidden in the OT times. Tradition changed from 33 AD and they were told to then share the Word with the gentiles. I myself do not put nearly as much trust in human tradition as the Words of Jesus Christ because tradition can be perverted, the Pharisees held onto their tradition, as if that was what saved them.

The true "rock" of the Christian church is the death of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, and His Word. I'm a firm believer that not a single person has ever been saved by "tradition", but only by the shed blood of our savior Jesus Christ.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join