Jump to content


Royal Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


shiloh357 last won the day on November 4

shiloh357 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

39,646 Excellent

About shiloh357

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 03/07/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology.

Recent Profile Visitors

26,454 profile views
  1. A peer-reviewed academic journal has made the controversial decision to publish a piece promoting the normalization of pedophilia. The article, "Childhood 'Innocence' is Not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex," was written by a convicted child pornographer and will appear in the December issue of Sexuality & Culture, an interdisciplinary journal that "publishes peer-reviewed theoretical articles based on logical argumentation ... and empirical articles describing the results of experiments and surveys on the ethical, cultural, psychological, social, or political implications of sexual behavior," columnist Justin Lee noted this week in Arc Digital. The author of the piece is Tom O'Carroll, a British man who has been jailed twice for pedophilia-related offenses. O'Carroll's article argues that virtue ethics — a broad term for ethical theories rooted in the thinking of ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, emphasizing the importance of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than mere duty or acting in order — is not grounds for rejecting sexual acts between children and adults, and that society should allow and even celebrate them. Read More at: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/academic-journal-to-feature-convicted-paedophiles-case-for-relationships-with-children/131156.htm?fbclid=IwAR2v4UjpAT7zh3nW-RQyHFQohdEO5fEM3DOHkB1x2PxwPZ-0HGGbbKadQoY
  2. shiloh357

    will gays go to hell if they do not repent?

    God's plan of salvation requires homosexuals to repent of the sin of homosexuality and turn to Christ. One cannot be a practicing unrepentant homosexual and be an authentic follower of Jesus.
  3. The Bible doesn't list every possible sin that a person can commit. Rather, it gives us a behavioral paradigm and from that, we can determine what is sin or not. For example: The Bible doesn't mention child molestation or pedophilia. But there is sufficient light in Scripture that we are able to ascertain that such activity is sinful and that God is opposed to it. The Bible provides us with a model for marriage/family and human sexuality. Any deviation from that model, whether that deviation is explicitly mentioned or not, would be sin.
  4. shiloh357

    Q as in Question

    This is what you resort to when you can't criticize the tangible results that have come out of his presidency. Trump isn't an angel and I am not convinced he is a Christian, but we didn't elect him to be a saint, but to be president. Trump is really no different than everyone else up in DC, many of whom have had all kinds of affairs and have solicited the services of prostitutes. To single Trump out for special condemnation when you have probably voted for others who do the same thing, is really unfair. Trump has done many, many good things for the US that don't get any air time, because the media doesn't' want us to know about them. But he has been a far more honest president and has been keeping his promises. He has kept over 75% of his promises. That speaks to character, too. He is doing what the establishment refused to do when it comes to growing our economy and creating an environment for job growth and lowering taxes.
  5. shiloh357

    Q as in Question

    Who in the world is "worshipping" the President. Accusations like that are what people have to turn to when they cannot offer up a cogent, rational line of argumentation. Just accuse Trump supporters of worshiping the president. It's absurd.
  6. shiloh357

    The Ark of the Covenant

    This is all false based on the fraudulent work of Ron Wyatt. It's all a bunch of baloney.
  7. The fuss is that homosexuals intentionally targeted a Christian bakery and demanded that they make a cake honoring homosexuality against the baker's religious convictions and wanted to force him, upon pain of prosecution (on the grounds of discrimination), to make a gay wedding cake that explicitly honors a homosexual wedding union. That was an act of discrimination. The hypocrisy about discrimination is so thick you could cut it with a knife. They will do to churches what they did to the baker. They will seek out and target churches that have a stance against hiring homosexuals and who will resist hiring homosexuals and they will seek employment and when denied employment, they will claim they are being discriminated against. They won't seek employment at liberal churches that embrace homosexuality. They will target conservative churches that oppose that lifestyle and they will file lawsuits against pastors and churches that refuse to hire homosexuals. A church also has rights and the homosexual community does not have the right to discriminate against a church's freedom of religion in order to force them to do that which violates what they believe. Churches are not required to accept homosexuals on their staff or as members of their congregation. Homosexuals are not minorities. No one gets minority privileges simply on the basis of how they have sex. And for homosexuals to try and hi-jack minority status is a slap in the face to real minorities who have suffered far more than homosexuals who enjoy far more acceptance than blacks did during the civil rights movement era of the United States.
  8. shiloh357

    Suspicion Against Scientists?

    Those writings are beneficial and helpful and inspirational, but our spiritual growth comes only from the Bible as it is the source of our spiritual knowledge and understanding. It is what produces faith within us (Rom. 10:17). We are to meditate upon the Word of God day and night. The Bible puts a premium on surrounding ourselves with wise counsel to be sure, but that is not the source of spiritual growth for the believer.
  9. shiloh357

    How Language Shapes Understanding

    But that's not analogous with what we are talking about when it comes to the accuracy of the Bible. We are talking about accuracy of substance, if what is said is actually the case, or not. Again, if the substance is wrong, what's the point in having a more linguistically accurate translation of a text if the text is self-contradictory, if the stories and people it didn't do what they are purported to have done, or said what they are purported to have said, or if they didn't even exist at all? I think I understand the difference just fine. The problem as I see it, is that you insist on misusing the word "metaphor." You are using metaphor to mean something like "symbolic" or allegorical. You are, essentially confusing those terms. Archeologically, if you avoid the liberal archeological field that is hell bent on an agenda to disprove the Bible and skew the facts, the truth is that the Bible is found to be wholly accurate in all places where it can be checked. I understand how symbolism works and I understand how metaphors work and you are confusing those terms. A metaphor isn't symbolic. A metaphor simply compares to things. Jesus compares Himself to a sheep gate. That's a metaphor. Jesus compared the short tempered disciples James and John with thunder. Jesus compared Himself as a shepherd and compares His followers with sheep. Those are metaphors. Metaphors are devices that are used in literature as tools to express a truth. Truth is never metaphorical. I can understand that you have it choreographed in your mind how something can be metaphorically true, but that is simply not the case in reality. Truth is what it is, not what you think you make it to be. I don't think I accused you of saying that the Bible isn't literal, per se. I think I have noted that you have stated that you don't believe the Bible to be TRUE, that you don't think Jesus what He is recorded as having said, that you think that even if what Jesus said is what He said, we cannot really know what it means, and that you are not really even sure that Jesus was ever a real person. So, I am pretty sure that we dig around we would find that you probably don't believe much of what the Bible says is actually true and factual. No, I wanted to know why you care about a new translation of book you don't believe to even by true. It's not about not believing as I do per se. It's just curious that you show so much interest in a book that you have pretty relegated to be full contradictions, false claims, and fictitious stories. It is even more curious how you think such a book could be useful to learn from if it cannot really be trusted as written. I am simply protecting younger Christians from being misled by the claims you make against and about the Bible, as they are false claims.
  10. shiloh357

    How Language Shapes Understanding

    I fail to see any fundamental difference that exists between "inaccurate" and "less accurate." Something is either accurate or, it is not. And I fail to see contradictions in the Bible, as well though people have endeavored to claim they exist. But if what the Bible says is not true in substance, then a more accurate translation of substantively false information is rather pointless, isn't it? No, I am not hung up "literal belief" but on literal truth. The problem I see in amounts to arriving at one's own "truth." I could concoct a "truth" that makes me feel better, that brings me comfort and peace. But if it is something of my own making then it really only exists in my imagination and not in reality and is nothing I can actually base my life on, much less be assured that it is actually true. Why are you adverse to the Bible being literally true? What does the Bible say that if, literally true, is something that you cannot countenance? That is a misuse of the concept of a metaphor. A metaphor is a literary device that compares to similar things. You might want to learn how to use the term metaphor because the Bible is not "metaphorical." The Bible is a collection of literary genres which contain metaphors, but the Bible is not "metaphorical." That is an inaccurate assessment of the Bible. How can the Bible ever reveal something if it is just a collection of stories of things that didn't happen and information that contradicts itself and is basically inaccurate as a whole? Why would you want to glean information from that kind of document. We would not accept that in any other context. I would expect a handbook on medicine or legal issues, or the IRS tax laws to be true, internally consistent and accurate if I am going to rely on that information when I need it. The Bible speaks our eternal destiny, so why would I trust a book that purports to be the truth if nothing in can be trusted as written? Your approach doesn't make sense. You are the one who began engaging me on WBs. But my purpose is to protect the board from those who spread false information about the Bible and that is what you're doing. You are a nonbeliever who seeking the truth, but you are attempting to spread false information and I am simply making sure that others who are reading are not led astray by your insistence that the Bible is not true. It's not about the translation, but about your overall disdain for the Bible and the implication that it cannot be trusted, that is inaccurate, contradictory and so on. I am defending the Bible against your false allegations about it and your attempts to muddy the water about the truth it possesses. And I am blunting the claims that you make. It also seems curious as to why you are so interested in new translation of a book you don't believe and why you are so interested in spreading that disbelief on a Christian message board.
  11. shiloh357

    How Language Shapes Understanding

    How do you know what we have is inaccurate? Didn't say it was. I don't think I am being defensive. I am simply pointing out that if you don't believe what the Bible says now, a new translation won't change anything. And based on the changes you have cited above, there is nothing new. The changes you cite above offer nothing in terms of anything meaningful or substantial. It offers no substantive changes in teaching or doctrine, nor does it discredit anything the text. It offers nothing that is not already available for anyone willing to avail themselves of resources currently available.
  12. shiloh357

    How Language Shapes Understanding

    Can you give examples of why that is true?
  13. shiloh357

    How Language Shapes Understanding

    But if don't believe what the Bible says is literally true, then what difference would it make? If the Bible isn't literally true, you are free to assign whatever values that you see fit, and the reliability of translation doesn't really matter as your views are based on what you want the text to mean. That has never been a problem where the Bible is concerned. Scholars have produced numerous works that provide assistance in that area. And that is also why we have the rules of literary analysis called, "hermeneutics" overcome the time, language and culture gaps that exist between us and the original human authors of the Bible. Most of cultural idioms and translational issues that scholars have encountered have never affected the core teachings of the Bible. There are plays on words that occur in Hebrew that don't come cross in English. And there are nuances in both Hebrew and Greek that English doesn't communicate well, but those are minor issues that do not affect, in any way the integrity of the text and never have. So we need a new English translation to help us decide if we need English translations? The stated purpose is already dealt with the many interlinears on the market that are really available to the modern reader with no understanding of Greek and Hebrew. But that being said, there is no substitute for studying the original languages . That has no meaningful affect on doctrine though. But so what? What does it change about the actual event? What theological changes are made?
  14. shiloh357

    Suspicion Against Scientists?

    It has everything to do with the canon. Anyone who says otherwise knows just enough about theology to be dangerous.
  15. shiloh357

    Suspicion Against Scientists?

    No, you can't enjoy spiritual growth without reading and studying the Bible. Without the Bible, spiritual growth cannot happen. The Bible is God's plan for how we live. It is His commandments and promises. It shows us the way of salvation. It is not a "users manual." I didn't say it is useful. I am saying that it is not merely useful. To teach that the Bible is useful is humanistic and utilitarian. The Bible is essential for how we live and grow as Christians.