Adoption by Homosexual Couples
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| Nathan222 wrote: |
|---|
| King James Version (not new king james). The newness of it removes it's trueness. |
So why not use the original text? Animals are described as “living creatures/souls” in genesis with exactly the same word as the soul in man [nephesh].
closed account (9E360pDG)
Check this: [url="http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp?FROM=biblecenter"]
See:
1) This room is so uncomfortable.
2) She found out her brother died, i tried but she was so uncomfortable.
Same word (uncomfortable), different meaning.
To re-clarify, it's in the bible that man is made up of body+soul+spirit, never was man declared as edible or for food. It's in the bible that every living thing other than man is for consumption, never were they said to have a spirit or soul.
See:
1) This room is so uncomfortable.
2) She found out her brother died, i tried but she was so uncomfortable.
Same word (uncomfortable), different meaning.
To re-clarify, it's in the bible that man is made up of body+soul+spirit, never was man declared as edible or for food. It's in the bible that every living thing other than man is for consumption, never were they said to have a spirit or soul.
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| I wrote: |
|---|
| Just an example of why answers that rely on bible quotes have very little worth to someone who doesn't 'know' they have the 'correct' bible. |
| Cheraphy wrote: |
|---|
| Question, how do we know which bibles are the correct bibles? |
Nathan222, Would you care to answer this?
closed account (9E360pDG)
I have. Check my last post in the previous page and the link. In fact, let me quote it:
| I wrote: |
|---|
| Don't go for any bible with new or revised. It needs to explicitly state the point of Christ and God. It doesn't need to be new or revised. No replacements, no sugar coating, nada. That's why KJV not NKJV is recommended. It's old, really old and doesn't replace provocative words with sugar coating. It tells it how it is in an understandable way but with no coats and no removal (thus the thou, thee, ye, thine etc.). An Example: If you compare the first book of the new testament in KJV and RSV, you will notice one big difference. In RSV, it's "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW" but in KJV, it's "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW". If they can omit that, think about what else they omit or change. |
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| I have. Check my last post in the previous page and the link. |
reading,,,
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Here's the thing...
When the 'The Gospel According To Matthew' was first written, Matthew was not canonised so it would not have been 'The Gospel According To Saint Matthew'. With that in mind, RSV would seem to be a more accurate translation.
Edit:
With regards to "Don't go for any bible with new or revised.", well, you would have to know what and why it was revised. It may be that it was miss translated originally.
So how do you know which one to follow?
In RSV, it's "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW" but in KJV, it's "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW". If they can omit that, think about what else they omit or change. |
When the 'The Gospel According To Matthew' was first written, Matthew was not canonised so it would not have been 'The Gospel According To Saint Matthew'. With that in mind, RSV would seem to be a more accurate translation.
Edit:
With regards to "Don't go for any bible with new or revised.", well, you would have to know what and why it was revised. It may be that it was miss translated originally.
So how do you know which one to follow?
Last edited on by Canis lupus
closed account (9E360pDG)
Another example:
Check the Lord's sermon (or prayer in RSV) and compare it with the KJV version. You will see that the RSV version removes a whole verse. Infact, read St. Matt, chapter 6 till 6:16 and compare them (note the differences between ye, you, thee, them, thy. They don't mean the same thing. Ye is different from you, thee is you).
Remember what happens when you remove from the word of God.
Check the Lord's sermon (or prayer in RSV) and compare it with the KJV version. You will see that the RSV version removes a whole verse. Infact, read St. Matt, chapter 6 till 6:16 and compare them (note the differences between ye, you, thee, them, thy. They don't mean the same thing. Ye is different from you, thee is you).
Remember what happens when you remove from the word of God.
Last edited on
closed account (9E360pDG)
The fact that RSV removed a whole verse and misuses words cancels the validity of any other bible that bears similarities to it.
You said RSV seems more accurate. The content doesn't agree. You said "by that time, he wasn't a saint". In RSV's Matthew, you see: and he said " ", meaning they weren't talking in that time. KJV has no quotes there.
That just shows why some consider the bible to be a storybook. They are reading the wrong bible and the authors will/are pay/paying. They remove words just to make it more acceptable and readable.
A good bible has to flow well. Bringeth, scattereth, thine, thee, ye etc. flow better than you, your, bring, scatter. It shouldn't feel like a normal book so you, them, scatter isn't right, it's normal and not good for reading the word of God. I still read the RSV but now to see how some people have been led wrongly. It's not their fault.
KJV does it right. It doesn't use the words of a normal book. It doesn't feel like a story. It makes me feel connected even though the ye, thou, thee may get confusing.
You said RSV seems more accurate. The content doesn't agree. You said "by that time, he wasn't a saint". In RSV's Matthew, you see: and he said " ", meaning they weren't talking in that time. KJV has no quotes there.
That just shows why some consider the bible to be a storybook. They are reading the wrong bible and the authors will/are pay/paying. They remove words just to make it more acceptable and readable.
A good bible has to flow well. Bringeth, scattereth, thine, thee, ye etc. flow better than you, your, bring, scatter. It shouldn't feel like a normal book so you, them, scatter isn't right, it's normal and not good for reading the word of God. I still read the RSV but now to see how some people have been led wrongly. It's not their fault.
KJV does it right. It doesn't use the words of a normal book. It doesn't feel like a story. It makes me feel connected even though the ye, thou, thee may get confusing.
Last edited on
1. Why are you creating multiple accounts?
2. How can you be so devoid of logic and still think you're providing an argument?
3. Why do you still think using the Bible as a reference is valid?
2. How can you be so devoid of logic and still think you're providing an argument?
3. Why do you still think using the Bible as a reference is valid?
closed account (z05DSL3A)
thou - archaic or dialect form of you, as the singular subject of a verb: thou art fair, O my beloved.
thee - archaic or dialect form of you, as the singular object of a verb or preposition: we beseech thee O lord.
ye - plural form of thou: gather ye rosebuds, while ye may.
thy - archaic or dialect form of your: honour thy father and thy mother.
The word "you" is supposed to be enough for both singular and plural uses. So in theory you could replace ye with you but it may not scan correctly as in "gather you rosebuds, while you may".
The King James Version of the bible is a translation of the texts into 17C English that may not be accurate. If you are having trouble translation a few words of 17C English into 21C English then they must have had a very hard time with Classical Hebrew and Ancient Greek.
If they took the original texts today and carried out a fresh new translation (not sugar coating anything), would it be a better bible than KJV? or is it the old language that you put faith in?
thee - archaic or dialect form of you, as the singular object of a verb or preposition: we beseech thee O lord.
ye - plural form of thou: gather ye rosebuds, while ye may.
thy - archaic or dialect form of your: honour thy father and thy mother.
The word "you" is supposed to be enough for both singular and plural uses. So in theory you could replace ye with you but it may not scan correctly as in "gather you rosebuds, while you may".
The King James Version of the bible is a translation of the texts into 17C English that may not be accurate. If you are having trouble translation a few words of 17C English into 21C English then they must have had a very hard time with Classical Hebrew and Ancient Greek.
If they took the original texts today and carried out a fresh new translation (not sugar coating anything), would it be a better bible than KJV? or is it the old language that you put faith in?
Last edited on by Canis lupus
closed account (9E360pDG)
@noxzema:
2) because it's less of arguement to me now and more of a discussion (and to try and correct what some think).
3) because contrary to what you might think, the bible tells you about what was, what is and what will be.
@canis: i put faith in the word for the word is God. Any bible that does what RSV does isn't the word for the word says "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things written in this book" Rev 22:19.
They don't convey the meaning when they use "you" because that's not how we understand the word.
They found it too confusing to put "Amen" at the end of their version of the Lord's prayer and convenient to remove a verse from it.
That isn't true, that's a book, a book of confusion with no direct link to the bible and God.
[url="http://workmenforchrist.org/Bible/Versions/Ye_Thee.html" ]
2) because it's less of arguement to me now and more of a discussion (and to try and correct what some think).
3) because contrary to what you might think, the bible tells you about what was, what is and what will be.
@canis: i put faith in the word for the word is God. Any bible that does what RSV does isn't the word for the word says "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things written in this book" Rev 22:19.
They don't convey the meaning when they use "you" because that's not how we understand the word.
They found it too confusing to put "Amen" at the end of their version of the Lord's prayer and convenient to remove a verse from it.
That isn't true, that's a book, a book of confusion with no direct link to the bible and God.
[url="http://workmenforchrist.org/Bible/Versions/Ye_Thee.html" ]
Last edited on
closed account (9E360pDG)
In case you find problems within the old testament and the new testament.
In the old testament, God hated, i mean, haaated sin to the point that He didn't condone it. He haaated it as much as the devil haates good.
In the new testament, Jesus showed God that man can be saved. That man will sin but death isn't the only way, that they can repent and be born again.
Just to re-clarify: [url="http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html" ].
I'm sure you've heard nothing is new under the sun. That includes homosexuality. You think it's not in the bible and Christ didn't have anything to say about it.
Read Romans 1:24-27. Read it closely, i'll let you decide. In case you need more, just reply.
In the old testament, God hated, i mean, haaated sin to the point that He didn't condone it. He haaated it as much as the devil haates good.
In the new testament, Jesus showed God that man can be saved. That man will sin but death isn't the only way, that they can repent and be born again.
Just to re-clarify: [url="http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html" ].
I'm sure you've heard nothing is new under the sun. That includes homosexuality. You think it's not in the bible and Christ didn't have anything to say about it.
Read Romans 1:24-27. Read it closely, i'll let you decide. In case you need more, just reply.
Last edited on
| Man was created by hand. It may seem like a scare tactic but it's true. I too would like to believe that hell, a place that'll make the sun seem like heaven in comparison, is not real but when you sit down to really think and see the words of the bible, you realise why it's real. |
so god didn't create any other species in the universe by hand and as such consequently no other species have souls. like I said - sounds too much like center of the universe bs, similar to how it was believed that the earth was flat and everything revolved around us.
things might become very murky for you if we do encounter species from other worlds and find that we can biologically breed with them. then the offspring of such a couple should have half a soul. if that offspring then breeds with another human then their offspring should be 3/4 human and logically posses 3/4 soul. but i suppose according to you such an offspring would be a creature with no soul.
as such, you will discriminate against such a creature from partaking in communion, regardless of the fact this this creature may have exactly the same convictions that you do.
closed account (9E360pDG)
That creature won't have a soul. The act itself of breeding with that creature would be a sin.
Soul and spirit is something unique to and only unique to man.
Read Genesis. All other creation was "Let there be . . .". Only on the 7th day was it "Let us create . . .".
You can't inherit soul. If we did, our souls would bear the sins of our parents. It is not a gene, it is not biology, it is not science. It is given to every human in the womb by God. Not inherited, given by God.
Soul and spirit is something unique to and only unique to man.
Read Genesis. All other creation was "Let there be . . .". Only on the 7th day was it "Let us create . . .".
You can't inherit soul. If we did, our souls would bear the sins of our parents. It is not a gene, it is not biology, it is not science. It is given to every human in the womb by God. Not inherited, given by God.
Last edited on
@Nathan2222,
i cannot allow myself to think the way you do. you claim that species from other worlds will automatically be at a lower level than you are because you believe a book (bible) that tells you so. this book is also riddled with errors - just google errors in the bible. the pope even issued a statement claiming that the bible is error free in bringing man to god but not error free historically or scientifically.
imagine considering yourself superior to these other species when they may have the ability to pull our human backsides out of the fire. what would happen if earth was heading for a natural disaster from space (global killer) and some other advanced species came to our rescue to relocate us to one of their planets. would you consider yourself (a Christian) a first class citizen on their planet while considering them second class citizens due to them not having souls in you opion taken from the bible.
if i was of such an advanced species i would leave all you Christians (and Muslims and Jews) behind and only take the 10% that don't discriminate the way the rest of you do without valid reason.
then you can see how effective your prayer is when the earth start burning under your feet.
i cannot allow myself to think the way you do. you claim that species from other worlds will automatically be at a lower level than you are because you believe a book (bible) that tells you so. this book is also riddled with errors - just google errors in the bible. the pope even issued a statement claiming that the bible is error free in bringing man to god but not error free historically or scientifically.
imagine considering yourself superior to these other species when they may have the ability to pull our human backsides out of the fire. what would happen if earth was heading for a natural disaster from space (global killer) and some other advanced species came to our rescue to relocate us to one of their planets. would you consider yourself (a Christian) a first class citizen on their planet while considering them second class citizens due to them not having souls in you opion taken from the bible.
if i was of such an advanced species i would leave all you Christians (and Muslims and Jews) behind and only take the 10% that don't discriminate the way the rest of you do without valid reason.
then you can see how effective your prayer is when the earth start burning under your feet.
Last edited on
closed account (9E360pDG)
That natural disaster will never happen.
I didn't come here for the pope. I came for Christ. I am not a catholic. I am a Christian. I believe in God and Christ not man.
Nothing is new. Your behaviour towards this and others is recorded in Romans.
I didn't come here for the pope. I came for Christ. I am not a catholic. I am a Christian. I believe in God and Christ not man.
Nothing is new. Your behaviour towards this and others is recorded in Romans.
Last edited on
| I didn't come here for the pope |
that doesn't change the fact that the bible was declared by official sources to be flawed w.r.t. to history and science.
the bible also mentions nothing about the natural disaster which wiped out the dinosaurs, so whether you believe it or not such things did and will occur again.
have you googled "errors in the bible" - can you see what I mean.
Last edited on
closed account (9E360pDG)
It's not a matter of will happen. It's a matter of will never happen.
Do you realise that rapture will take place on earth? No natural disaster will wipe out earth. God has armed man with everything it needs to ensure that earth stays where it is, i.e. His power and wisdom.
Do you realise that rapture will take place on earth? No natural disaster will wipe out earth. God has armed man with everything it needs to ensure that earth stays where it is, i.e. His power and wisdom.