Viribus Unitis

And you are telling me NOW? I'm blind and typing with my nose

worthyboards is a wonderful place. but there are some topics which spark a lot of heated debate. THIS topic is usually in the controversial thread, and might should have been moved there so that people who try hard to demonstrate self discipline by avoiding that forum would be less tempted. the political threads usually turn very heated too. there is a lot of good fellowship here at WB. Another problem is that instead of looking at this as a topic of debate, everyone starts taking everything personal. There are people that believe things I am doing are sinful, but I don't get all up in arms because they tell me I am doing something they consider to be wrong. For instance, I know of pastors that don't believe it is right to have a tv set. If there was a thread on that topic, I might not agree with them, but I would not attack them as legalists, and tell them they have no right to their opinion. Even if they said I was in sin, so what? If I believe it is ok to have a tv set, I will have one. If I decide they were right, I will get rid of it. The other thing is that these topics go off track. This one was dealing with appropriate clothing while going soul winning, and it went off into pants in general, as well as numerous other topics like legalism. If we would do a better job staying on subject, things would likely work out better as well. You know when the issue in question is the moral judgment of an action, anybody who does that action feels judged. It gets personal because that is how it is felt, and unless we reflect on that it will repeat itself every time. I personally do not see anything wrong for a woman to wear pants, I do not feel it immodest at all. If that is your belief, so be it. The thing that is bad to me is that a member of WB comes here with a sincere question. When everyone is answering her and has the same opinion, there is peace. When someone answers her with an opinion that is contrary to the others, they can't have that. They have to silence that person. I don't know if it is because the person asking the question might be influenced by that person's view, or because they are personally offended, but either way, if we are not allowed to ask questions, and then receive honest answers, what good are the forums? If everyone has to look at everything alike, why have debates? I don't know Butero. I really don't know who is at fault in this particular instance. What happens is that I am burnt out from many expereinces in different forums. I am seriously considering leaving this one for good and never be at a christian internet board in my life. I just don't know if Christians can debate as brethren, and this i really ripping me apart.

worthyboards is a wonderful place. but there are some topics which spark a lot of heated debate. THIS topic is usually in the controversial thread, and might should have been moved there so that people who try hard to demonstrate self discipline by avoiding that forum would be less tempted. the political threads usually turn very heated too. there is a lot of good fellowship here at WB. Another problem is that instead of looking at this as a topic of debate, everyone starts taking everything personal. There are people that believe things I am doing are sinful, but I don't get all up in arms because they tell me I am doing something they consider to be wrong. For instance, I know of pastors that don't believe it is right to have a tv set. If there was a thread on that topic, I might not agree with them, but I would not attack them as legalists, and tell them they have no right to their opinion. Even if they said I was in sin, so what? If I believe it is ok to have a tv set, I will have one. If I decide they were right, I will get rid of it. The other thing is that these topics go off track. This one was dealing with appropriate clothing while going soul winning, and it went off into pants in general, as well as numerous other topics like legalism. If we would do a better job staying on subject, things would likely work out better as well. You know when the issue in question is the moral judgment of an action, anybody who does that action feels judged. It gets personal because that is how it is felt, and unless we reflect on that it will repeat itself every time. I personally do not see anything wrong for a woman to wear pants, I do not feel it immodest at all.

I thought I have found a better place than ChristianForums.com, but sadly it is not so. I am convinced it's something to do with not been able to see each other's faces.

Because it happens quite often. Some times I think James had a revelation about the net when he wrote his letter.

I am absolutely, What are your positions on this matter?

done

you should edit that email address before the spam bots find out

John 4:20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. When Jesus answers the Samaritan woman regarding the place where God should be worshiped He does not reject the old values. He affirms in no ambigous terms - we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews - that the Jerusalem Temple is indeed ordained by God, but... But He then warns that the old system was about to pass, that those matters and concerned are expired. The hour comes when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Sprit and Truth. And adds, because the Father seeks such. As Jesus went to the Samaritan woman, knowing her sins very well; God comes for us, knowing our sins very well. However He looks for us not to keep on sinning, but to worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Now, what that's Spirit and Truth all about? Earlier in this chapter we have the sign of the living waters that Jesus brings and that provides eternal life (see John 4:1015). It is also linked to the sign of marriage. The Samaritan woman had not been loyal to her marriage as Israel was not loyal to the Covenant, not loyal to God. The comparation is not mine, it is one the prophets use one and another: the Covenant was broken and smashed down one and again, not by God but by the corruption of the hearts who looked for other lords, other teachings and other laws God is fed up with rituals, with empty rituals and do not want them any longer. I could go so bold as to afirm that they were established more for the human needs which need something physical to see and touch than for the needs of God. God does not need them. What God wants is Spirit and Truth. A worship that springs from God as the living waters and that to God returns; a relationship of a holy marriage that is linked not to rituals but that through true love that loves what God loves and hates what God abhores.

While I have never watched Oprah in my life I neither take every verse literally... what's the issue, really?

1.- The Great Commision is found only in Mark? No. It's found in the other three gospels and in the book of Acts. 2.- People should not be lazy when studying the Gospel. The entirety of the text is not. Nice try, but I am not letting you get away with it. Here is what it says in the text the NIV is disputing. Mark 16:15-18 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Produce any scriptures from other areas of the Bible that include the great commission as well as the signs that will follow believers as is stated in this passage. It is not just enough to say it exists. Produce it if you can. You were concerned about the great commission,. Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Luk 10:19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. That is not an account of the great commission. What you gave me was an account of when the 70 went out and reported back to Jesus. It by no means gives a full account of the scriptures in dispute. As for the TR versus other manuscripts that are out there, nobody can prove one better than another in an absolute sense, but what they can do is show them to have differences. Those of us who believe the TR is the Word of God believe that by faith, as I stated earlier, and those who believe they are all equal, (am I right to assume that is your position, or is it only that of the NIV translators) believe that by faith. If that is not the case, then tell me how your belief that all manuscripts are equal can be proven correct? Now that you doubt my words so much, here they are, I hope it pleases your distrust of me goodbye: Mathew 28:16-20, Luke 24:36-51, John 20:21 Acts 1:8

Ok, I'm going to leave this discussion at this point, whatever the ever. It's just a matter in which I made my mind long ago, and I just spend more and more hours of unfruitful labor searching for just another verse that can be interpreted differently. As long as I'm concerned it is a settled matter of little consequence to me, mainly because I use a wide array of Bibles rather than just one, and if I use one in English it is normally the KJV (because I love its style, go figure), and that's that. I am a some big christian forums veteran, and I really do not want to repeat my generic theological strives expereinces, if you know what I mean. So I'm out, I said what I had to say and that's all. I'm off this issue either in public or private.

1.- The Great Commision is found only in Mark? No. It's found in the other three gospels and in the book of Acts. 2.- People should not be lazy when studying the Gospel. The entirety of the text is not. Nice try, but I am not letting you get away with it. Here is what it says in the text the NIV is disputing. Mark 16:15-18 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Produce any scriptures from other areas of the Bible that include the great commission as well as the signs that will follow believers as is stated in this passage. It is not just enough to say it exists. Produce it if you can. You were concerned about the great commission,. Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Luk 10:19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

Dear Viribus Unitis, how do you know the older manuscripts are the most reliable ones? I have not said that the older manuscripts are the most reliable ones. However, you did say that the TR is the most reliable manuscript, and I wonder what's your base for that.

1.- The Great Commision is found only in Mark? No. It's found in the other three gospels and in the book of Acts. 2.- People should not be lazy when studying the Gospel.

Dear Botero, how do you know the TR is the most reliable manuscript?

Well, you know some pretty excellent Christian books were left behind and some have had a conflictive history until they were universally accepted. I believe the Holy Spirit guides His body.

You -> <-God Let Him to have the initiative

The question is whether or not the NASB is word for word literal. I do not believe it is. The only translation I believe to be word for word literal is the KJV Bible, but this does bring up an interesting point. In order to believe the NASB is word for word literal, you have to believe it is without flaw or error, so I suppose that would mean you should be NASB only, although somehow you also believe the Holeman Bible is word for word literal as well? Does the Holeman Bible say the exact same thing throughout without any varaint as the NASB? If it does not, they both cannot be word for word literal. The only Bible that is literal word for word is the original autographs. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. As long as you are translating from one language to another, there will always be variations, because a literal word-for-word translation would be either unreadable, make little sense, and in some cases, there is no equivalent word in other languages. There is no perfect translation, and there is no inspired translation. This argument implies that every translator, except for the ones who translated the KJV, are, at best, a bunch of idiots. And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God. Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it. But you can use text criticism using the manuscripts we do have to determine what the most likely reading was. The dependability of the current English versions we have is not just a personal opinion as you seem to be implying. If that is so, tell me how you can prove that the 66 books of the cannon are the only books that should be included, and that the 66 should all be there, given that this determination was made by men? I believe it is so, but I want proof. Next, you mention text criticism, but that is based on numerous scrolls found in various places. Some include verses that others leave out. All we know is that they are similar, but we have no absolute assurance any were innerant, or that they were the Word of God. We believe that by faith. Unbelievers have told me that they believe they are nothing more than the writings of men, and there is really no way to prove them wrong. I believe they are of God by faith, having read the book for myself. The books were chosen by consensus, that's the truth of the matter.

The question is whether or not the NASB is word for word literal. I do not believe it is. The only translation I believe to be word for word literal is the KJV Bible, but this does bring up an interesting point. In order to believe the NASB is word for word literal, you have to believe it is without flaw or error, so I suppose that would mean you should be NASB only, although somehow you also believe the Holeman Bible is word for word literal as well? Does the Holeman Bible say the exact same thing throughout without any varaint as the NASB? If it does not, they both cannot be word for word literal. The only Bible that is literal word for word is the original autographs. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. As long as you are translating from one language to another, there will always be variations, because a literal word-for-word translation would be either unreadable, make little sense, and in some cases, there is no equivalent word in other languages. There is no perfect translation, and there is no inspired translation. This argument implies that every translator, except for the ones who translated the KJV, are, at best, a bunch of idiots. And your argument implies that God was able to give us perfect original manuscripts, but was unable to preserve a perfect English translation. It has nothing to do with the translators being idiots or smart. It has to do with them being inspired of God. Let me ask you this Cobalt. Ovedya stated that the original manuscripts no longer exist. That is true. As such, how can you prove to me that the original manuscipts were the innerant Word of God? On what do you base that belief? Second, the Bible was put together into 66 books. How do you know that the 66 books we call our Bible are the ones that belong there? How do you know others shouldn't have been included and some left out? After all, men put the Bibles together well after the orignal manuscripts were written. When you can provide proof that those things are right, then you will have the credibility to tell me I cannot be right in my belief that God preserved his Word perfectly by using the KJV translators. You can think my opinion is wrong, but you cannot prove it. The thing is not if God preserved his word by using the KJV translators, but if the word of God is not preserved in other versions.