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.
Translation: unrepentant people are to be put out of the flock, excommunicated, until they show repentance and cease their sinful actions. Allowing them to remain in the flock puts the rest of the flock in danger of thinking that such actions are acceptable.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You know what, I have run into you on other threads, I know your type, There will come a day that you will curse God, because he absolutely proves to you that he exists and his bible was/is true, but you will be cursing in absolute defiance when you are forced to acknowledge his existence.
Why? Because an epiphany will hit you like a ton of bricks as to what that means for you, and your going to be very angry.
Ezekiel 25:16
17And I will execute great vengeance upon them with wrathful rebukes and chastisements, and they shall know (understand and realize) that I am the Lord, when I lay My vengeance upon them.
Originally posted by sezsue
Hi, TheColdDragon,
I was curious. How do you know? Is it because YOU are a linguistic expert?
No one has any excuse to just assume anything now days, because we have the internet to be able to do some research.
In Daniel, it says in the time of the end, knowledge will be greatly increased, and implies the future generation at that time will be able to find out what Daniel was told was closed to him.
Can we just take the first piece of information that supports our views though? NO!!!
If I go to Richard Dawkins website, of course THERE, I will find out that the Bible has been thoroughly corrupted. But he is an atheist, so he has an agenda. He wants to bring people over to his point of view. I read what he has to say, though, because I want to be exposed to both sides.
HOWEVER, there is plenty of documentation that states that, except for a few words here and there, the ancient documents and current Bibles are practically the same.
The following article is refuting the LDS church's stance on the Bible. I have no agenda against the LDS church in referencing this article. This was just one of many I could have used, and was one of the first in the list.
ACCURACY OF OUR COPIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Strict regulations were enforced in the copying of Old Testament scriptures. An authentic specimen had to be used, and copyists weren't allowed to deviate from it in any way. Nothing was permitted to be written down from memory, not even a dot. If any mistakes were made, the faulty copies were either burned or buried, as was every document that showed any sign of wear. Many other precautions were also taken, some even more elaborate than these, such as the counting of every letter on each page. So it's unlikely that errors would have crept into the copying of the Old Testament.
It doesn't make sense to imagine for one moment that people who were so fanatically fastidious about the accuracy of their scriptures, and so in awe of them, would adulterate them or hack out great big portions of them. Nor would they permit others to do so. Those Jewish folk guarded their scriptures jealously and reverentially. Don't forget that the primitive church was completely Jewish, and a large number of the early church consisted of converted Jews, all of whom had this very same reverence for scripture.
In 1947 an Arab shepherd boy discovered a vast quantity of ancient manuscripts in some caves, which became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. They pre-dated anything we'd previously possessed, and included portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. Many of the scrolls were in fragments, but those they have pieced together agree with our modern Bibles.
ACCURACY OF OUR COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
As we've learned more about ancient biblical languages we have been able to translate them more precisely. But this hasn't changed the actual meaning of the content in any way.
We possess more than 3,000 New Testament manuscripts dating from the fourth century. A few of these have minor variations. However, as most of them do agree, it's an easy matter to sort out which are the reliable texts.
Some copies of John's writings dating from 200 AD have come to light. They agree with our Bibles. We also have the writings of the apostolic fathers and the church fathers. (The apostolic fathers were the disciples of the apostles, and the church fathers were the disciples of the apostolic fathers.) Their combined writings contain the entire New Testament, except sixteen verses, which are only the introductions to the epistles. And their versions of the New Testament scriptures agree with our modern translations. Furthermore, besides these, there were literally thousands of other early Christian writings citing verses from the Bible, that agree with our Bibles of today. So we can rest assured that our modern New Testament is in line with the original writings.
(Ravi K. Zacharias, page 162, "Can Man Live Without God? " Word Publishing, 1994.)
Because of the overwhelming evidence available, it is unlikely that errors could have crept into our versions of either the Old or New Testaments.
God Bless
[edit on 25-7-2009 by sezsue]
''For this complete edition,
Morris contributed study notes on the book of Isaiah.
“It took a long time,” Morris said.
“It’s an important book of the Old Testament, with so many Messianic prophecies.” It also includes notes he contributed for the book of Romans that had been in the earlier edition,
as well as the glossary he developed, which has been retained and updated.
Yancey writes,
“When we read the Old Testament,
we read the Bible Jesus read and used.”
“The early Christian church used the Greek version of the Scriptures,” Morris said in an interview in his study at St. George.
“This Greek version was called the Septuagint,
for the Greek word for ‘70,’ the number of scholars Ptolemy hired about 200 or 300 B. C. to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.”
HE Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the Septuagint (...) is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century AD. (...) It is, moreover, a pioneering work; there was probably no precedent in the world's history for a series of translations from one language into another on so extensive a scale...
Of The Seventy
The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
* 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
* 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
* 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
* 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11). * 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
* 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
* 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
* 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
* 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
* 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
* 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
* 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
* 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
* 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by pdpayne0418
Hi pdpayne/
The Greek Septuagint (Old Testament) has been around alot longer then the TRANSLATED versions of the later falsified Bibles.
The actual Greek word is as it is written.
It HAS NOT been changed!
Blue_jay33 has the Greek correct!
Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by pdpayne0418
Hi pdpayne,
I just wanted to say, WOW.
Your responses remind me of John Matrix's responses regarding whether or not it's fornication or adultery if the married couple agree to share themselves with other people outside the marriage.
Before you ever made the statement that you were going to the Gay Pride parade (or was that a joke) I figured you were homosexual, because of the statements you were making.
Originally posted by Zacaretas
Perhaps I am being cynical, or am I the only one who's seeing these contradictions? In my opinion, the Bible cannot be a book about love when it is encouraging others to kill one another
Universal and Limited Commands
Not all commands recorded in the Bible were for the whole human race. The command to observe the Passover feast annually (Exodus 12:14) was never an obligation to any but the Hebrew nation. On the other hand, the call to repent of personal sin is a requirement of all men everywhere (Acts 17:30).
Christ once issued this directive: “Tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). That obligation was certainly not universal, but only to the apostles. However, the responsibility to be immersed in order to receive salvation is as universal as the ability to believe in the Lord (Mark 16:15-16).
One must carefully consider the context of Bible commands to know whether or not the individual injunction is required of him or her.
Temporal and Permanent Commands
Not all commands listed in the Scriptures were intended to last forever. The divine command, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8) was operative only so long as the law of Moses was in effect.
The Mosaic system was a “schoolmaster” to prepare the Jewish nation (and through them the Gentiles as well) for the coming of the Messiah. When Christ had accomplished his holy mission, that law (hence, the sabbath command) expired (Galatians 3:24-25). Those who attempt Sabbath observance today are looking in vain to an obsolete law.
The imperative, “Desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1), would surely not be applicable in this age, since spiritual gifts have long since passed from the church’s possession (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:8ff).
On the other hand, when Jesus, with reference to marriage, charged, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6), he issued a prohibitive that would be binding throughout the Christian era. New Testament marriage regulations are designed to last as long as the institution itself prevails.
Commands of the Bible must be carefully analyzed. When it is determined that they apply to us, we must humbly submit to them.
In the Bible, God gives different types of commands. Some of those commands (and you've quoted from some of them) are specifically for the nation of Israel at a specific point in time. Other commands are specifically for the nation of Israel in general. Others are to all people. Some are specific to individuals.
When the Bible says "Go to Nineveh," why do all believers not travel to that city? Because that command is directed at one person: Jonah. When the Bible says "put to death men and women, children and infants", he is directing the nation of Israel, at one specific point in its history, to deal with the Amalekites, their enemies. (The Israelites did not obey this command, and it created great misery for them later.) When the Bible says "love one another," it is making a statement to all of Christ's followers, for all of time.
Context is key. The Bible is part history, part guide for living, part revealed truth. Only a moron would take a history book and attempt to follow it as if it were an instruction manual.
Originally posted by Zacaretas
Yes, in 2Ti 3:1-5 it says to simply turn away. Now in 1Co 5:1-5 it essentially states that those who have sinned and are tempted by the flesh can and will be expunged from the church. How is this just turning away and letting them be?
Originally posted by Zacaretas
Perhaps a Christian cannot judge a man's actions and it is only up to the church to do so, but is that Christian not part of the church?
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Matthew 22:21
Originally posted by Zacaretas
Does the Christian not follow what the church tells her to do? In a silly example: what if I were to be part of an organization that had a text that said all who have blonde hair are considered weird and should be outcasted. Even though I am told to love everyone as myself in this organization and do not feel that having blonde hair is a big deal, I am still being instructed to outcast a fellow human simply for being "different" so long as I am part of this organization. This begs the question: why be in it if I don't feel the way they do about said situation?
Originally posted by Zacaretas
This rings of a holier than thou outlook and it helps to strengthen my belief of what might be going on: be like us, do what we say, follow the book, do not go outside the box or you shall be punished. "Us" and "we" being the clergy.
Originally posted by Zacaretas
It is almost as if those who are not in the inner circle are considered a threat and a poison to those who are in it - all in the name of "protecting" the flock. Is this not the root of discrimination?
Originally posted by Zacaretas
Why not follow this advice and if she refuses to listen just let it be, take the advice from the first passage and turn away, instead of: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." which in a sense states that if she refuses to hear you out and continues to "sin" then you are granted the right to bring the attention to more people, to the church, and to look at said person as nothing but a heathen or publican.
Originally posted by Zacaretas
someone once told me that there is a hell because it said so in the Bible and that it is true because Jesus said so ... it's in red. So because the text is in red that must mean it's 100% fact?
Originally posted by makinho21
The bible you so fervently hold in divine glory was put together by Catholics - ie: Pope Alexander and the other first Roman leaders who founded the Catholic Church. So either you are a fake "christian" as well, or you are simply mislead. You worship the Catholic bible - not the evangelical bible, or the baptist one.
I would like to see how you worm your way out of this one.
As to your proposition Mary is not to be worshipped and She is not important to Christians, obviously Catholics have something different to say: