another_poster

Thats a dangerous question because what else then do we dismiss because it was said to the apostles and not us?

Yes I do have depression. It is mostly under control. It is easier. Main reason I mentioned it though is that a person with depression tends to have low self esteem and it is not the result of them having done something wrong which appeared to me to be the implication some were making.

Hi Wingnut, Thanks for sharing. Almost seemed a bit like deja vu reading your story it is that close to my own. I had three deaths to deal with as well and also was told I would never run again (they didn't know about God's healing!) but fortunately thanks to others I never became homeless. That would have been bad and the authorities probably would have taken my son away from me. I'm still amazed they didn't. While I'm still getting there and still need more work by God to tear down the wall around my heart I just can't see things getting that bad again. One passage I have always held to closely was Zechariah 3 where Joshua the high priest was being accused and the angel of the Lord said "The Lord rebuke you satan. Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" That helped me in tough times for years but was first given to me after abuse and was the point where healing started. It however meant nothing to me when going through all that. My question was a prompted partly from people saying well if you know your scripture then you'll be fine and get through things. Well that wasn't my experience. I don't think anyone could go through what I did and not end up at absolute rock bottom. It just seemed to me people were suggesting a person sinning was the only reason one could have low self esteem. So I know it is not a result of sin that I went through what I did. I now use that story as a witness to others. I also have been able to help a number of other single parents because I have been there. Thanks for taking the time to answer and sharing so openly.

Yep right at the point when it should mean everything. Why do we do that I wonder? When I say it is meaningless what I really mean is that we can get to a point where we just can't see it ourselves and need a fellow believer to step up and follow scripture to make sure it is real to the person. Now for me I desperately needed a hug. I had been in churches in a room full of people and never felt more lonely in my life. When I was looking for a new church I went to one near where I had just moved and a complete stranger gave me a hug. I don't know how long that hug lasted but I'd be willing to bet at least 10mins. I was in tears when they gave me that hug. I finally understood God still loved me. God still cared for me. Now so many experiences in the past had taught me that. The bible tells me that but it meant nothing to me. Two years without a single hug for someone who was absolutely shattered in pieces and whose primary love language is touch and quality time. I still had a long way to go but that was the turning point. People had just quoted scripture thinking it would help but it needs to be real. We can say we trust Jesus but it is a bit meaningless unless we step out of the boat and walk on the water with him. Sure we can still fail and need Jesus to reach out and rescue us but our faith is not a faith of just words. Without action to back it up it is dead.

Care to comment on the gospels and how what you have said fits in with that? Jesus tells the disciples whatever you bind will be bound and whatever you loose will be loosed and if you forgive sins they will be forgiven. Does seem like he does give that authority to the disciples. In context that passage does not appear to be talking about a sin against the disciples.

We are told to do so, because our heavenly Father first forgave us. Mathew 18 tells the story of a man who falls to his knees asking for mercy, his master has compassion on the man and cancels his debt. For some reason the servant forgets all that, when a fellow servant owes him a debt. And demands that the fellow servant pay up instead of forgiving the debt owed. The master calls him aside and says...”see here, I forgave you a tremendous debt you owed me, simply because you asked. Should you not have also forgiven the fellow servant”? Mathew 6 :14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. As for the doctrine that is practiced by priests. I find fault with it. And reject it. Because when a person goes into the confession booth, and confesses. The priest takes it upon himself to do a job that does not rightfully belong to him. He is not capable of removing sins and cleansing a person of all unrighteousness. Only God can do that. God the father has declared his son to be the one who is the mediator between us and God. Why go to a priest, when the bible tells us that we can go directly to God when we sin and ask him to forgive us and cleanse us of all unrighteousness Hi GA, good to see you again after having several chats in the chat room. I understand the story of Mathew 18. My question was in response to another person saying only God can forgive. Well if that is the case we should not be instructed to forgive people if we can not forgive. I agree we can go directly to God. We should. Once a friend after a conversation we had asked if I wanted him to pray for me. I said no because I need to learn to go to God rather than asking someone else to go speak to God for me. Of course he prayed for me as we went our separate ways (saying that based on me knowing his character rather than actual concrete evidence). So I agree it is important we go to God. There are benefits to sharing with a trusted fellow believer here on earth. Sometimes I kn ow something is a sin but the thought of having to one day give an account to God is not enough to stop me from doing it. If however I have shared with a friend then I know that next time they see me they will ask me how I'm going and it helps me to stop before I sin. Over time I find it becomes easier and easier to avoid the sin without a friend checking up on me because I have practised. Sometimes just getting that start is difficult. So no it is not required but it certainly has its benefits.

Can you give anymore details? Just a bit vague for me to understand.

is it required? No I don't believe it is. Is it helpful to confess to another person? Personally I believe it is. This means I have a good friend who will help me to not commit that sin again. It could be a gentle word when getting frustrated which if not given could result in that frustration turning into sin. We are designed to live in community and help one another. I think that is all it is about. Why the priest? Well it is their job to be available basically. Over time I think it has developed into a requirement in those denominations but with people being so busy it is good to have a person who is available almost always.

So why are we instructed to forgive someone if they sin against us then if only God forgives?

Wondering if anyone has anything to say in response to my post #21. It is easy to sit back and say if you just follow scripture then you will not have a problem. How easy is it in ALL situations to follow scripture? There is a very good reason we were created to live in community. Just scripture is not enough to get us through. We can not replace God with scripture. Sure focusing on other people helps take our minds of our own problems. However you need to be able to get out of bed to do that. When one gets to the point where getting out of bed is too much effort and barely eats then it is not so simple. Of course it should also be noted that one can not just ignore ones problems by focusing on other people. That is not healthy. We still need to deal with problems but taking time to focus on serving others helps to give respite from your thoughts and helps restore a better balance to things.

It is interesting that people are approaching this from an angle of a persons sins being the only thing that can affect a persons self esteem. What about circumstances in life? What if you have been knocked to the ground and kicked over and over again to the point where you wonder why you should bother getting up again? You start to think that God doesn't love you anymore. At that point to be honest scripture really is meaningless to a person.

post #74. Yes you are playing semantics. Claiming people were demonically inspired is same as demon possessed. You also criticise the claims that that Alexandrian & Egyptian texts are more reliable as a claim with no evidence. Well stop your double standards and produce your evidence that the translators of EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION that used those texts was demonically inspired. I bet you can't. I know remember why I didn't respond to your earlier posts. You keep low standards for yourself while expecting much higher standards of everyone else. I must look at why I was silly enough to reply to a person who has proven several times they do not listen. In previous discussion on this topic you also did not address several things I raised. Once or twice I could easily understand as a accident but when getting into double digits then it becomes rather difficult to dismiss as an accident. You have several times accused people of not addressing your posts but you continue to refuse to address other peoples posts. You say you do not do so intentionally but yet here you reply to a post where I repeated one of the questions yet you still did not answer it. So are you admitting to only reading half of a post and then replying? If not how did you miss my question? So get on and answer it please. You will note this time I have not included the scripture reference but since you constantly claim to have researched this and studied the scriptures closely you should know what I am talking about. I am only talking about the KJV translation. If they chose the best words possible why do the passages not read identically? Why are the words different? Especially as you say just because the message is the same does not make it valid. Also justify your claim that you know the mind of God. That is quite a extraordinary claim. You say God is not in favour of those passages being removed but you have not justified the claim. God looks at the heart and I reckon if he looked at the heart of the translators of these other versions then even if wrong he would see they were doing what they felt best.

Butero I went back through the thread and read carefully before posting what I did. It is nothing but semantics claiming it is not the same thing. You certainly did claim the translators were demon possessed at least with absolutely no evidence. Tell me what happens if they were doing God's work and spirit inspired. What happens to someone attributing the work of God to the devil? Ever heard of a thing called blaspheming the spirit? One should be very careful before making the accusations you have made. As for faith comments my faith is in God and God alone. If your faith is in the bible then you are not christian. Your faith is not supposed to be in the bible. Having faith that the bible is 100% correct is fine but it should not be the basis for your faith like you have claimed. You make out like it is an impossible thing to handle. If you can't figure out something as simple as that how on earth do you handle the tough questions? None of those things have any negative bearing on my faith. I know God is real so no matter what I am left with no choice but to believe and worship God. I also find it interestingthat you comment that a person did not address any of your comments yet you have refused to address many of mine. How about applying the same standards to others that you apply to yourself please. If you like lets start with why there are different words in the KJV for the exact same passage. After all if your claim is correct then surely the words should be the same.

Nobody has said you can not have the view you have. The biggest issue I have with you is where you call the rest of us demon possessed because we are happy to use other translations. That is why you come across as arrogant. Stop telling us we are doing satans work. Simple as that. As long as you insist on claiming we are demon possessed we will argue. Do you not realise the seriousness of the accusation you are making against us? I'm guessing you have not really thought about it that much as I'm sure if you did you would not choose to write those words. You keep bringing up this person who questions John 1:1. I'm betting they are a JW since you also keep mentioning the bible that cult came up with. Christians do not accept JW's as a christian denomination. You should not argue as if they are when that is not a reflection of reality. I would also be interested if you could provide a list of the different manuscripts that are available to translate from original language.

I don't think the OP is talking about people who may think they are christians and attending church on a regular basis but rather people who claim to not believe.

I am of the view that those involved in leading worship should not just be believers but also regular attenders of the service they are leading at. One off occasions is fine to have others but they should be believers. While God is talented beyond what I can imagine and does use anyone including unbelievers worship leaders are responsible for ensuring worship is possible. They should also be open to promptings from God which an unbeliever won't recognise. There is also the risk they could turn it into a performance although some churches seem to do that as well. By promptings from God I include the time when a minister stopped the church service part way through communion and told us our attitude and response was not acceptable. Having read through a few other responses after writing my reply I can see others have said it far better than I could.

Then start showing others the same courtesy. You listed all these arguments that not a single person here made in this thread and demanded we defend them. So either you defend the arguments made by others or don't demand others do what you are not willing to do yourself. Still the point made is still valid. A rebuttal was put forward but you decided to treat it as an argument instead of a rebuttal. That does not work. If every single person only used the NIV then everyone would be reading the same thing so that argument doesn't stand. except you still have not provided anything other than your opinion on if those parts are legitimately part of the original text or not. For other reasons which you have stated you want that to be the case otherwise it causes doubt for you. Thats fine. It isn't an issue for me however and you should not assume I will start picking and choosing because it doesn't suit me. I can't help but think there is a bit of projection going on here. I have heard this they pervert the meaning argument so many times. People have given me passage after passage where they claim it was changed. I have gone through sixty* different passages that KJV only people have given me and not one of them changed the meaning. It just doesn't stack up. *I know it was sixty because I copied the list into a file and looked at them carefully one by one. They were numbered. You claim to listen to others but you still don't get it. You still aren't listening. I do not need to defend their actions. I do not make the claim that they are more accurate. That they tell me some translations include extra bits shows they are not trying to hide anything. If they were trying to hide it then they would make no mention of it. I also find it interesting that you have never adequately addressed the issue of word for word translations potentially missing the meaning of the passage. I have in the past given example and mentioned it several times in threads but you never answered it.

and people used to believe 100% that the earth was flat. Doesn't make it right just because you believe it 100%. Just like having 100% faith in Budha won't save you. The KJV is a english translation so when you say english translations cause confusion then the KJV is part of that. It is also a false claim to say the KJV was translated from a single text as they translated from the Latin Vulgate in parts. Is it ok to remove parts of the original text is irrelevant question and pointless to discuss as we do not have the original texts. What people call the original texts are actually copies of the original. They also include text that was passed on by word of mouth which was a common practice. You make the same assumptions that so many others make about my comments on that verse in revelation. You assume I am happy to discard the entire bible other than revelation. Since you acknowledge reading that thread how about you comment on the fact that revelation is not the only place in scripture that that verse appears which means that since the OT scripture existed then writing the NT must have been sinful and authors subject to a curse for adding to what was already established scripture. Can't have it both ways. Don't read more into what I say than what I have actually said. It is a bit like when I say the virgin birth is not an essential doctrine. People suddenly start demanding to know why I don't believe it. I have never said I don't believe it just that it is not essential doctrine.

So your argument is that God couldn't care less about preserving his word and then suddenly decided Hey I should preserve my word and create the KJV! How can you justify such a belief? Please don't be insulting by denying it because that is the only position you can hold with the views you have expressed unless you are happy to contradict yourself. This is a strawman argument from you. I have been to churches where they have a policy of using the one translation in all services. So it is not an issue. It also is not an issue if you accept that people are not perfect. I was taught to always check what people preach to see if it lines up with the bible and I have questioned a number of people on their teaching. Yet the claim made is that it removes doctrines so if you accept the argument or not is meaningless as argument being made that that statement is a RESPONSE to is that it changes doctrine. The claim is false. Since it is an answer to a claim it does not have to fit your additional view. How do you know the best word has been chosen? Once again I have shown why word for word translations like the KJV can cause problems in understanding and you have never answered that.

I have never heard a valid answer as to why the KJV is more reliable. and the KJV doesn't agree in entirety with manuscripts that came before it so according to your logic the KJV is not a valid translation. No having it both way thankyou. I will not accept an argument that relies on double standards. only in your opinion. Oh and I find churches are very much in favour of preaching the great commission and encouraging people to follow it. So personally I don't know where you get that from. I am not talking about one individual church but many different churches over many different denominations. However unlike you I don't take a position on this. You also are making a baseless claim and are therefore just as guilty as the people you criticise. If thats the way you want to go then thats fine. However it does absoutely nothing to address my concerns.

No you did not give a single biblical reason. You gave reasons why you believe the KJV is a more accurate translation but that is not a biblical reason. Also bringing in a translation made by a group acknowledged as a cult and not a christian group as an argument is pretty poor form. I understand you have your reasons and if that is what you choose then go for it. I have no issue. My only issue is when you make statements that sound arrogant and belittling to others by suggesting we are corrupted and uneducated. In regards to original language argument you made the issue I have with your approach is that there are seven different words in the original languages that are translated as 'love'. Unless one looks at what the original one used then you don't get what it means. Of course if you had explained why my example of problems with word for word translations was not valid then that would strengthen your argument and make me think. However you never addressed it.

Fact is that the Old Testament was already a major portion of the Bible and present in all the synagogues, therefore in all the churches. Fact is that ALL of Paul's epsitles were already recognized as Scripture by Peter even while he was writing his epistles, so all the churches he was writing to would have had copies. Fact is that the Gospels were already in circulation and Paul quotes from Luke. Fact is that Paul spoke about "the books" and "the parchments" while writing to Timothy (a reference to the New and Old Testaments). Fact is that there was a Muratori Canon listing 99% of the New Testament books before 200 AD, which means that the canon of Scripture had already been completed by 100 AD. Fact is we really do not know enough about the apostolic churches to make any claim about the Bible being incomplete. The book of Revelation by conscious design and by the date of its writing is the last book in the Bible. Thus G. H. Lang in The Revelation of Jesus Christ wrote this in 1945: "While in the strict letter the threats of this terrible warning [Rev 22:18,19] apply to the Revelation, yet in asmuch as this portion of the Book of God is rooted in, interwoven with, and IS THE COMPLETION OF THE WORD OF GOD, it becomes impossible to tamper with this final book without maltreating what has been given of God before". So to continue to insist that that dire warning in Revelation is strictly for Revelation is not only specious, but fails to see the whole picture (as G. H. Lang and others have seen it). Was Scripture tampered with by Gnostic heretics? Absolutely. Was the tampering to attack Bible doctrines? Absolutely. Do modern bible "versions" contain a corrupted Bible? Absolutely. There is solid documentary evidence for all these statements. The sad truth is that the majority of Christians have been hoodwinked into believing that they have superior bibles to the KJV (and other Reformation Bibles). So according to you the entire NT is sinful and should never have been written. Convenient how you skipped over that argument. Interesting that you also seem to be claiming that Lang is beyond question. Yes there are people who give his view but there are others just as qualified who disagree. There are many problems with assuming everything in a book of the bible applies to every situation. To take that view means one can only conclude that the bible is full of contradictions! The KJV obviously is not perfect because it translates the same words differently. I have seen many of these arguments. I have read so many phamplets and spent hours going through websites and there are just no compelling arguments to suggest the KJV is better than any other translation. Even the way it was translated shows they were not divinely inspired in the translation process which means that they were capable of making mistakes.

perhaps you need to realise that just because someone says something does not automatically make it true. Without the spiritual side to it then it is harmless.

The issue is not whether demons surround us daily. The issue is whether Christians have "fellowship" with demons and thereby open themselves to Satanic influences, while provoking the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor 10:19-22). All Hindu practices are ultimately involved with demonic forces as revealed below: 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? yet we are clearly told it is fine to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

There is enough doubt on the topic to not be able to conclude one way or the other. I think the side most people would fall on would be determined by their view rather than facts.That it does not appear in so many of the texts for such a long time should cause one to doubt. So I think the best option is to to take a open position on that topic and as you say let the spirit guide us.