Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SmallTownGuy





Joined: 28 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
Reputation: 2.5Reputation: 2.5

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

905 Tory wrote:
Of course there's a God. I can never convince myself there isn't. However, people's notion of God is flawed for the most part. People think they understand it completely and things like that. God is so immense so ever-present that we'll never come around to understanding it completely. I say "it" because my notion of God is beyond time, gender, limits, life, death, hate, etc. I believe that God is around you, within you, above you, etc., etc., etc. God is this ever-present force, and the only way we can get closer to it is through our inner feelings and thoughts not on the outside or by saying something and believing something else. We can donate all we have and say this and that but if we never believe and feel it, we'll never truly reach what every religion promises you will reach. I know the traditional notion is that thoughts and feelings are harmless but I reject that.


I agree with much of what you say. I have come to be a strong believer in the King James Bible (1611) as God's accurate and infallible written word to mankind. I believe that God has preserved his written word for us through that version. I would agree with what another poster has said that God has revealed himself through his son, Jesus Christ, who became a human as well as being God at the same time. From my reading we can get to know God properly only through his Son, Jesus. That is where other religions fail. You are correct in saying God is everywhere, but I wonder if the word force is a good word to describe God because it seems a little impersonal. But God is also a very personal God in that he is concerned with individuals and deals with us as individuals. The Bible says he is a Spirit. The Bible says God's Son is the image of God. It also says God is love. He is just, merciful, long-suffering, and many other qualities. This means he must have a personality. I will admit the qualities and attributes of God are probably far beyond anything we could imagine or describe.
beaver





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 246
Reputation: 81Reputation: 81

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmallTownGuy wrote:

I agree with much of what you say. I have come to be a strong believer in the King James Bible (1611) as God's accurate and infallible written word to mankind. I believe that God has preserved his written word for us through that version.


I disagree. If you want to exact, God's "accurate and infallible written word to mankind" are the original thousands-of-years-old manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. All Bible versions that come after are translations of these original documents. Thus, NIV is just as valid as KJV.
SmallTownGuy





Joined: 28 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
Reputation: 2.5Reputation: 2.5

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beaver, The reason I trust the KJV (1611) as an accurate translation of the original manuscripts is based on a number of facts. I will summarize although much more could be said:
1. The KJV is based on what they refer to as the textus receptus or received text. That is a translation of the New Testament whose basis is the copies of manuscripts that were handed down through the ages and kept in the Byzantine world. When the Muslims invaded the eastern empire (Byzantine area), some scholars fled to western Europe with these manuscripts. These were the key manuscripts used in the first English translations in England in the 1500s. Erasmus probablay used some of these for his first Greek New Testament in the mid 1500s. Out of these sources, the KJV was translated in 1611.

The modern versions, including the NIV, are based on a different source, which were given prominence by two Anglican bishops (Wescott & Hort) in the 1800s. The manuscripts they gave more credence two were the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. These two New Testament manuscripts differ with the received text in thousands of places. Among other things they weaken the deity of Christ. They developed a theory that because they were a little older than the extant copies of the received text, even though the number of manuscripts behind the received text was far greater, they still claimed theirs were more accurate. All modern versions are based on these two manuscripts and this theory of Westcott and Hort. It is called the Critical Text.

2. God has promised in his word to preserve his word. Most will agree that the original texts were a verbal, plenary inspiration and therefore absolutely accurate. I think you said something to that effect. Did God intend to only give an accurate revelation of his communication to the people who had read or heard the original manuscripts or did he intend to preserve what he said for future generations in an equally accurate way? That is what we must ask ourselves. The answer is in Scripture itself. The clearest answer is in the gospel of John chap.17 vs8.

"For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." John 17:8 Jesus said here that He gave his disciples his Words. What are these Words? Where are these Words? This verse shows God has given the church His Words and that they must therefore be preserved. He did not give them to just one generation and leave them to become corrupt or unclear or to be distributed (in English for example) in a hundred different ways through a hundred different translations. This verse God through providential preservation has keep an accurate copy of the original and it has been passed down. For the past four hundred years that accurate translation which God has preserved is the KJV (1611). Historically believers have always had a "Received Text", which was eventually compiled into the Elzevir brothers Greek text in 1633. We must conclude God has preserved His Word in an accurate translation and that is the one based on the Received Text. You can find much more information on this and on the NIV and why it is not an accurate translation at various websites. One is the Trinitarian Bible Society website. Actually the NIV is not even a translation. It is a paraphrase version. The New Testament is not based on the received text either and is full of changes. The TBS has an article on the NIV which you might care to examine.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

Scroll down the left side to articles and you will find all kinds.
There are several on the NIV. You can go directly to one article at:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesoc.....es/niv.asp
hatrock





Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 489
Reputation: 73

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps someone can enlighten me here as regards the Holy Bible and other Holy Books.

Why should we take what's written verbatim in a book when those words have been translated and potentially misinterpreted from ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Hindu, or other?

I mean, the first line of Genesis in English does not convey the Hebrew meaning. I know no Hebrew, but my friend has studied it intently from a religious perspective and has said that instead of...

"In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..."

..a closer translation would be..

"God just be'd."

... meaning, God manifested God.

Which, when you think about it, makes sense from a scientific perspective... the universe just exists.
teenagetory





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 369
Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4
votes: 1
Location: Halifax

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Answer: We shouldn't...
I consider myself and evangelical Christian believing the Bible to be the word of God. By that I mean that I consider the original manuscripts penned by the author's of the various books and letters of the Bible to be the infallible word of God. However that does not mean that the word is immune from corruption due to malice, translating errors or even the simple typo of some ancient scribe.

Furthermore I think it is impossible for any man to make a perfect translation of the Bible due to the vast differences between English and Greek. For example look at this transliteration of:John 1:1 (Sorry, when I copy the Greek alphabet BT changes it into latin letters)

Greek: En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.

Notice the word logos which has been translated as knowledge, word, account, reason etc. There is no English equivalent for "logos" so the best we can do is make a rough approximation. Both the NIV and KJV list it as this:

English: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That said, translators are a dedicated and scholarly bunch, and they do not undertake the translation of a holy book lightly, and that in the case of Christianity I am not aware of any translation issues that would change cardinal doctrines. Thus I consider the NIV and KJV to be roughly the word of God and are suitable for Christian study, devotions, prayer etc
teenagetory





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 369
Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4
votes: 1
Location: Halifax

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="teenagetory"]Answer: We shouldn't...
I consider myself and evangelical Christian believing the Bible to be the word of God. By that I mean that I consider the original manuscripts penned by the author's of the various books and letters of the Bible to be the infallible word of God. However that does not mean that the word is immune from corruption due to malice, translating errors or even the simple typo of some ancient scribe.

Furthermore I think it is impossible for any man to make a perfect translation of the Bible due to the vast differences between English and Greek. For example look at this transliteration of:John 1:1 (Sorry, when I copy the Greek alphabet BT changes it into latin letters)

Greek: En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.

Notice the word logos which has been translated as knowledge, word, account, reason etc. There is no English equivalent for "logos" so the best we can do is make a rough approximation. Both the NIV and KJV list it as this:

English: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Thus neither the NIV or KJV translate that verse as the perfect word of God, and neither do any other versions as there is no English equivalent for logos.That said, translators are a dedicated and scholarly bunch, and they do not undertake the translation of a holy book lightly, and that in the case of Christianity I am not aware of any translation issues that would change cardinal doctrines. Thus I consider the NIV and KJV to be roughly the word of God and are suitable for Christian study, devotions, prayer etc
teenagetory





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 369
Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4
votes: 1
Location: Halifax

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Answer: We shouldn't...
I consider myself and evangelical Christian believing the Bible to be the word of God. By that I mean that I consider the original manuscripts penned by the author's of the various books and letters of the Bible to be the infallible word of God. However that does not mean that the word is immune from corruption due to malice, translating errors or even the simple typo of some ancient scribe.

Furthermore I think it is impossible for any man to make a perfect translation of the Bible due to the vast differences between English and Greek. For example look at this transliteration of:John 1:1 (Sorry, when I copy the Greek alphabet BT changes it into latin letters)

Greek: En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.

Notice the word logos which has been translated as knowledge, word, account, reason etc. There is no English equivalent for "logos" so the best we can do is make a rough approximation. Both the NIV and KJV list it as this:

English: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Thus neither the NIV or KJV translate that verse as the perfect word of God, and neither do any other versions as there is no English equivalent for logos.That said, translators are a dedicated and scholarly bunch, and they do not undertake the translation of a holy book lightly, and that in the case of Christianity I am not aware of any translation issues that would change cardinal doctrines. Thus I consider the NIV and KJV to be roughly the word of God and are suitable for Christian study, devotions, prayer etc
SmallTownGuy





Joined: 28 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
Reputation: 2.5Reputation: 2.5

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:31 pm    Post subject: Genesis chap.1 vs 1 Reply with quote

hatrock,

Check this link to see the actual word for word translation of the Hebrew words. The actual English words are shown immediately below the words in the Hebrew alphabet.
You can see you have been seriously misled. The King James Version proves to be an accurate translation.

http://www.scripture4all.org/O.....f/gen1.pdf

teenagetory,

Check my posting above made in August and the link to the Trinitarian Bible Society website where there are various articles on the subject of manuscripts and translations as well as several articles dissecting the NIV. The NIV is not actually a translation of original manuscripts. It is known as a paraphrase. Sentences are reworded in a way that the authors of the NIV thought would make easier to read, similar to a newspaper. It is also not based on the Received Text; therefore it is far from an accurate translation.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 634
Reputation: 93.7Reputation: 93.7
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TORYBLUE wrote:
oh my God. Good God. Thank God. God help us.........why do we instnnctively blurt out these expressions when there is a disaster or something good happens to us.... could it be because there is within each human being the inescapble imprint of a divine essence which we cannot deny though many would like to .... think about it.


You blurt it out for the same reason you blurt it out in English.

You were taught to. Indoctrination, there is a reason they start them young.

Even when older and a non-beleiver in any form facet idea or notion of religion one can still be saying it.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
You were taught to. Indoctrination, there is a reason they start them young.


Really? We start learning about evolution and the big bang very early as well (you could call it indoctrination if you wanted to impose a negative connotation on it) but we don't blurt out "my Darwin". In fact, the "indoctrination" you speak of explicitly teaches you NOT to use the Lord's name in vain.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCentre is here to agitate. But nowhere near Christopher Hitchens who was on 60 minutes and wasn't so sure about GOD at the end of the interview. He said he wanted proof.

But since he is dying, isn't it interesting that he has become more open and less belligerent?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 634
Reputation: 93.7Reputation: 93.7
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Really? We start learning about evolution and the big bang very early as well (you could call it indoctrination if you wanted to impose a negative connotation on it) but we don't blurt out "my Darwin". In fact, the "indoctrination" you speak of explicitly teaches you NOT to use the Lord's name in vain.


All true.

We do not blurt out "my Darwin" for the probable reason that it is not in the cultural vernacular.

For the most part we dont yell out "Praise Allah", or Yaweh or FSM. Unless of course you are adherents to anyone of those.

I use "indoctrination" specifically since, at least for me, it is an apt description of what I had as a young person going to the local United Church.
Def: •Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. This definition suits my experience to a T. Yours of course may well have been different.

ETA, we yell out "ouch" when we pinch a toe (or worse words)
We toss salt over a shoulder when spilled, and all of these are learned cultural responses to input.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 634
Reputation: 93.7Reputation: 93.7
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
TorontoCentre is here to agitate. But nowhere near Christopher Hitchens who was on 60 minutes and wasn't so sure about GOD at the end of the interview. He said he wanted proof.

But since he is dying, isn't it interesting that he has become more open and less belligerent?

Respectivley disagree Sir.

I asked if you would like to counter the claims I made on another post whereby I questioned your assertions.

To date I see no response. However I have seen two responses from you which A) questions my sexual preference as the m,ain point (like that matters one whit)
and B) to rid me as I seem to agitate, which is not my intention.

I do hope more open dialogue can be produced here though. It seems far too many one of two post threads with "yes yes !"

But if you 'd like to discuss this further , by all means.

But as the rules state, attack the message not the messenger and I belive I have done that.(spelling mistakes too !) :shock:
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What assertions? Everything you need to know is on the forum or my weblog. There arre many many links to veirfy my sources.

And, frankly, you are not conservative; though, you might have voted for a conservative once or twice, because the other candidates and parties were/are ridiculous and are taking Canada down the slippery slope.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 634
Reputation: 93.7Reputation: 93.7
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
What assertions? Everything you need to know is on the forum or my weblog. There arre many many links to veirfy my sources.

And, frankly, you are not conservative; though, you might have voted for a conservative once or twice, because the other candidates and parties were/are ridiculous and are taking Canada down the slippery slope.

Which ones?

The ones I posted in response to "I believe" and I countered some of your held beliefs as fallacy.

I am more than willing to have honest debate, but I do get prickly on things that have no basis in fact. I felt that some of yours were in that category.

I never said I was conservative, but rather said I have some conservative beliefs,primarly economically , and liberal in some aspects of social mores.

I would bet we agree on welfare for the downtrodden but we want some changes made.
I bet we agree on immigration but would like to see changes made.

My point is we can agree up to some point, but beyond that we may have differences.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 7

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Does God Exist?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB