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.

 

Christian Answers Repository

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Attention...



Continued off-topic posts by a handful of members intent on disrupting this thread will lead to it's closure if continued. Consider this fair warning.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
An honest question:

Do Christians believe non-believers are sub-par, inadequate, or even "sinners"?

If not, why not? Surely if you follow the word of God, anyone who doesn't is less than "holy" or "godly", even immoral?

I would appreciate many different Christian's opinions, as i'm sure they will vary.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
An honest question:


I'll take a stab, hopefully this isn't off-topic...


Do Christians believe non-believers are sub-par,..


Not at all.


inadequate,..


Nope.


or even "sinners"?


Christians believe we are all sinners, certainly us included.


If not, why not? Surely if you follow the word of God, anyone who doesn't is less than "holy" or "godly", even immoral?


The Word of God says we are all less than holy, godly, and immoral. (Christians included)


I would appreciate many different Christian's opinions, as i'm sure they will vary.


The self-righteous religious people will tell you that they are "holier than thou", but don't listen to the religious people. Their ideology either leads to putrid self-righteousness (I'm better than you are), or depression (I can't live up to the standard), their rhetoric never leads to a humble joy for what Christ did for us as sinners.
edit on 23-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 



So I'll stick with the english Bible preserved and inspired just for me....and the rest of the world which use english as the world's most commonly used language. Hints why God chose it (english) to spread his word through out the world.


English wasn't the "world's" language back in 1611 though. French was. Why didn't God preserve his word in French? Why would God have preserved his Word in one language, that wouldn't rise to prominance for another 300 years, give or take? Or are you of the KJVO bunch that believe that God preserved a version of his Word in each language? If so, what do you do when the two versions disagree about what the Greek says?

Which leads to my next thought: Why would God preserve a translation form the original language to be his only inspired word? There are always nuance lost in translation. No translation is perfect. Did God just decide one day that the little nuances that are put into the Greek and Hebrew texts didn't matter?

King James Onlyism is a really difficult position to hold.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
 



Do Christians believe non-believers are sub-par, inadequate, or even "sinners"?

No, Christians don't view unbelievers as somehow inferior to them.

Christians do, however, view unbelievers as sinners. But, Christians view everyone as sinners, even themselves, because we all sin.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 



English wasn't the "world's" language back in 1611 though. French was. Why didn't God preserve his word in French? Why would God have preserved his Word in one language, that wouldn't rise to prominance for another 300 years, give or take?


Because human population since 1900 has exploded in an exponential curve.

Kinda is a testament, (again), to God's omniscience. He knew today with the massive human population explosion, that His word would best reach around to all the nations and cultures in English, not French.


If so, what do you do when the two versions disagree about what the Greek says?


Which Greek? KJBO people complain that the Greek used by modern Bible translations is the Greek texts that emerged from the Alexandrian schools that mixed Mysticism and Gnosticism with Christianity. The Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaticus.

Those people expurgated a great deal of scripture that didn't align with their Gnostic doctrines and beliefs.



edit on 23-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
 



Do Christians believe non-believers are sub-par, inadequate, or even "sinners"?

No, Christians don't view unbelievers as somehow inferior to them.

Christians do, however, view unbelievers as sinners. But, Christians view everyone as sinners, even themselves, because we all sin.


Isn't that a contradiction, if you believe we are born as sinners, or naturally sinful; then surely those who don't follow "the word of God" are inferior to those who do?

If that wasn't the case; why would you follow Christianity?

Perhaps this sums up my query:-


Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

-Annie Dillard
edit on 23-6-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
 



Isn't that a contradiction, if you believe we are born as sinners, or naturally sinful; then surely those who don't follow "the word of God" are inferior to those who do?


None of us were born following God or His Word.

All of us are sinners. You either have repentant sinners or unrepentant sinners.

Doesn't matter, we are all sinners.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Because human population since 1900 has exploded in an exponential curve.

That would mean though that between 1611 and 1900, if God's word is preserved in one language, there were people's all across Europe and the Middle East that couldn't read God's Word because it was stuck on a little island to the northwest of Europe.

I guess God shot himself in the omniscient foot?


Kinda is a testament, (again), to God's omniscience. He knew today with the massive human population explosion, that His word would best reach around to all the nations and cultures in English, not French.

Fact is though, reaching people of all nations and cultures around the world is not best done in English. The overwhelming majority of people today do not speak English; even though we're told in America that they do. People may know enough to say, "Hi, how are you?" but to have a theological discussion? Yeah right.

I'm going to be teaching the youth tomorrow night at my church here in Germany. I would get so many blank stares from the kids if I decided that I wanted to teach in English instead of German. I'd get even more blank stares if I were to, say, go to South America and try to reach the average Joe with the KJV in my hand and English coming out of my mouth.


Which Greek? KJBO people complain that the Greek used by modern Bible translations is the Greek texts that emerged from the Alexandrian schools that mixed Mysticism and Gnosticism with Christianity. The Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaticus.

Those people expurgated a great deal of scripture that didn't align with their Gnostic doctrines and beliefs.

That simply isn't true. Yes, there are some verses not there; but that's because the texts are older! That aside though, there is no doctrine denied by a modern translation that can be taught from the KJV. None. I challenge you to prove to me that that's the case.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
 



then surely those who don't follow "the word of God" are inferior to those who do?

No, why would they be inferior? All humans are created in the image of God. Whether or not someone follows Christ or not doesn't change that.


why would you follow Christianity?

Because Christ has made a way that we can have peace with God the Father and have a relationship with him.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Eskimoes?

aboriginal Tribes?

Sinners, right?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 



That would mean though that between 1611 and 1900, if God's word is preserved in one language, there were people's all across Europe and the Middle East that couldn't read God's Word because it was stuck on a little island to the northwest of Europe.



Stop and think WHY it is that a majority of nations either speak English or have it as a second language. It's because of the British Empire and the massive territory the "owned" during that time. It's not because of Rosetta Stone software.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're missing the point that not everyone speaks English! Taking English in school for a few years doesn't make someone an English speaker! In fact, the overwhelming majority of people can't speak English beyond simple conversations! Have you ever been outside the United States? If so, have you tried to have conversations with people? It's not as easy as you think!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 



That simply isn't true. Yes, there are some verses not there; but that's because the texts are older!


1. "Older is better" is a fallacy. Let me ask you, which would have a better chance of survival till today? A text that was used repeatedly and had to be re-copied (by hand) at the time, or a text that sat on a shelf and was rarely used?

2. First century apostolic fathers and ante-Nicean father QUOTE portions of the texts that the Gnostic Christians at Alexandria expurgated from the texts. This means that they were removed from the texts and not added later by scribes as some claim. Most notably the last verses of Mark.

This video series will explain all of those details and will include the works written by the apostolic fathers and ante-Nicean fathers who quoted these verses that apparently were "added" centuries later. It's bollocks.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're missing the point that not everyone speaks English! Taking English in school for a few years doesn't make someone an English speaker! In fact, the overwhelming majority of people can't speak English beyond simple conversations! Have you ever been outside the United States? If so, have you tried to have conversations with people? It's not as easy as you think!


I haven't said that everyone speaks English.

What was the landscape like centuries ago when the British Empire controlled much of the known world?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Eskimoes?

aboriginal Tribes?

Sinners, right?


What part of "all" don't you get?

Glad you brought up Aboriginal tribes though, because when missionaries went to the Aboriginal regions of Australia they already knew about God and His Son Jesus but didn't know His name. My God is big enough to reveal himself to those without a written Bible.

He did it for thousands of years after Adam and before Moses.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Let me ask you, which would have a better chance of survival till today? A text that was used repeatedly and had to be re-copied (by hand) at the time, or a text that sat on a shelf and was rarely used?

In this situation they both would! One is being used and the other is being recopied! [With the recopying process giving scribes the chance to make mistakes and add their commentary in the margins!]


This means that they were removed from the texts and not added later by scribes as some claim. Most notably the last verses of Mark.

Scholars know though that the last verses of Mark were added later. That's why there are three or four different endings to Mark floating around.

Scholars know as well when virtually all of the additions to the MT and TR were added. For example, 1 John 5:7 was added in the tenth century or something like that.

Saying that it's bollocks is silly.

Also, I still challenge you to show me what teaching of Christianity is denied, left out, or what ever from the modern translations or the current critical texts. You're not going to find one, which just shows that this "Anti-Alexandria" thing going on in KJVO circles is baseless.




top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join