A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2012, 09:38 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 08:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-06-2012 08:13 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  So many posts, with so little said, and so many claiming victory about nothing. Sigh.

S.T. Ranger: Is there anything specific you came on to the forum to say, or ask? Perhaps you (and we) could step back and treat each other like adults that actually have reasons for the things we believe or disbelieve. Perhaps you in particular could tell us some of the things you believe, and why you believe them. That is, what do you mean when you say "God". What is the nature of that god? What makes you think this god is real and has the properties you state for it? Do you have a good reason to believe that exists outside of your own mental state, and outside of the internal mental state of particular bible authors that the rest of us may have missed?

What do you believe, and why do you believe it?




EXACTLY! all we get is blah blah blah. I'll probably fall off my chair if he answers the questions. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. The upstairs flat is for rent.

I prefer "Toys in the attic."

Or perhaps..."bars in the window."

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 09:43 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 09:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-06-2012 07:41 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  You believe firmly there is no God, and for there to be an absence of belief in truth, you must have never heard of God, and never had the concept enter your mind.
Nope. That is self delusion. Show me one shred of evidence. It's all about evidence. And that's it. You have not one shred. You have already proven, by what you said about the First Covenant, that you know nothing about history. Are you on drugs ? (lol lol lol lol lol lol) ? I repeat show us the evidence, the real archaeological evidence, for your First Covenant. The "absurd side" remark is hilarious. Your "drop out" status is showing again.
(13-06-2012 07:41 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I get the impression that you may feel you have a real "stumper," here. Why I do not know. It is common among many denominations to hold to the trichotomy of man. So I guess you do have me stumped, as I find the question a little on the absurd side.

Name one.
As I said last week, your horse is named Trigger, and there's an angel knocking at your door. It's name is Moroni. There are some gold tablets buried in your back yard.

How about the Southern Baptists, for example? How about many Independant Baptists? Many Charismatic fellowships?

And I am not sure how the moronic angel has relevance to me, perhaps you could explain that. As to Angels, we are told that they will visit people, howbeit unawares. This is in keeping with identifying Holy Angels, servants of God, and emissaries of the enemy. If an Angel, or any other man, for that matter, brings a different Gospel than which we have received, we can identify it for what it is...demonic doctrine.

And hey, let's keep my horse out of it, okay? lol

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I will reverse the order of these posts, as I think it may help both of you.

(13-06-2012 09:56 PM)aurora Wrote:  I wonder why he keeps ignoring you, KC? Tongue (intimidated much?)

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that I have ignored KC. In point of fact I have not, but, have tried, unsuccesfully, to be patient. If you feel I have ignored KC, perhaps you might go back and read the exchanges so far, and perhaps take note of the conversations.

It seems that loyalty to a translation gives this person the authority to mock and ridicule, and despite the fact that it is ridiculous to both say "Use the NASB" and ignore the fact that I recommend one not stop at a translation, it seems this individual has taken a dislike for me, despite the fact taht he knows very little about me.

I would also ask that you give attention to what brought up translations in the first place, which is the subject of the New Covenant. Seeking to obscure the focus of discussion by claiming superiority of knowledge in himself as well as those that constantly attack the veracity of God's word is amazing. Luckily, I am not the only one capable of seeing the hypocrisy involved in a person bent upon himself...making a mockery of both Christians as well as the word of God, aligning himself with those that are openly hostile to God and His word.

Amazing.

So I recommend that you take a look at the conversation again, and then tell me honestly that I have avoided KC. I think the public record will show that this is not the case.

But, since you bring it up, I will admit that I have prayed for and about KC, and how the Lord would have me deal with this individual. And I can only hope that the direction of conversation has God's blessing and that it is not just a matter of anger, which for the record, I feel to be justifiable.

There is certainly something to be learned here, and I eagerly await the instruction that I am confident will be forthcoming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 10:15 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(14-06-2012 09:54 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I will reverse the order of these posts, as I think it may help both of you.

(13-06-2012 09:56 PM)aurora Wrote:  I wonder why he keeps ignoring you, KC? Tongue (intimidated much?)

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that I have ignored KC. In point of fact I have not, but, have tried, unsuccesfully, to be patient. If you feel I have ignored KC, perhaps you might go back and read the exchanges so far, and perhaps take note of the conversations.

It seems that loyalty to a translation gives this person the authority to mock and ridicule, and despite the fact that it is ridiculous to both say "Use the NASB" and ignore the fact that I recommend one not stop at a translation, it seems this individual has taken a dislike for me, despite the fact taht he knows very little about me.

I would also ask that you give attention to what brought up translations in the first place, which is the subject of the New Covenant. Seeking to obscure the focus of discussion by claiming superiority of knowledge in himself as well as those that constantly attack the veracity of God's word is amazing. Luckily, I am not the only one capable of seeing the hypocrisy involved in a person bent upon himself...making a mockery of both Christians as well as the word of God, aligning himself with those that are openly hostile to God and His word.

Amazing.

So I recommend that you take a look at the conversation again, and then tell me honestly that I have avoided KC. I think the public record will show that this is not the case.

But, since you bring it up, I will admit that I have prayed for and about KC, and how the Lord would have me deal with this individual. And I can only hope that the direction of conversation has God's blessing and that it is not just a matter of anger, which for the record, I feel to be justifiable.

There is certainly something to be learned here, and I eagerly await the instruction that I am confident will be forthcoming.

/eyeroll

It has nothing to do with anything that you just ranted about.

I simply pointed out that you are using a translation that isn't accepted as the best in the realm of theology. It has nothing to do with me saying that God's word is corrupted or whatever.

Translations are corrupted. Also, you use KJV and NIV - two translations that are opposites. One of them has to be corrupted. Either the NIV is right with their verse deletions or they are wrong and the KJV is right.

Either that, or you can accept that translations are corrupted, and that the only way to empirically glean the most accurate information from scripture is to get as close to the original language as possible.

That's why the NASB is accepted as the most accurate modern translation.

This isn't opinion. This is fact.

I don't understand why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
14-06-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(13-06-2012 09:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(13-06-2012 04:48 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  You really need to check your facts, my friend. I avoided your earlier comment concerning the KJV, just as you have avoided my comments about translations in general.

You say that you are tired of repeating yourself, well, I feel the same. Would you care to comment on the issue of translational importance that has surrounded the efforts of Godly men throughout the centuries?

Men that did not betray their brothers that they might tickle the ears of those that hold him in derision?

You say the NIV is an abomination? Sounds very much like the ignorance of KJV Onlyism.

NASB onlyism? Good choice.

Have to go now, hope you don't mind me saying, but you see, I am running a little late for my mid-week indoctrination.

GTY
Holy crap on a stick.

It is quite obvious the "eloquence" of your fellows is having effect. Good job. I mean, when I read this, it just caused me to call into question everything that I have studied over the years and wondered if you are not right, that, in fact, those that boast great biblical analysis skills and knowledge are, are you say, much more informed than I.

Just kidding. The truth is that you have, as I said before, spent far too much time here.

"Show me your friends, and I will show you your future," the saying goes, and it is true.

I have tried, KC, really, not to couunt you as an antagonist, despite the incredibly questionable behavior I have thus far witnessed. But you seek to want to push the issue with your interjections, which, like most of what I have seen so far, work against the cause of Christ and bring His name into shame.

So, we can play it your way.

If you want to discover the problems involved in translational superiority, that is fine. I can tell you this: both sides of the coin have thier problems, and it is not a new topic for me. It is probably one of the practical issues that a believer has to determine, though sad to say, few really give it a second thought.

So you have set the table, and I am more than willing to draw up a chair. Bring on the "bread" you have, pick the doctrine, decide the topic.



(13-06-2012 09:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  You cannot be this dense.

You might be surprised...lol.

Of course, "higher learning" is to be determined for it's worth to the individual, and what one considers to be wisdom, or folly.

(13-06-2012 09:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Let me try it this way. Do this exercise for me.

Your exercise is irrelevant, and if you bothered to actually look at how the KJV came about, you would not make an ignorant statement such as, "The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate."

That is what you said, was it not?

While Erasmus may have consulted the work of Jerome, and in fact used in a few places that which was not in the Greek texts he had to work from, he did not, nor did those that came after him...translate the Latin Vulgate. And I seem to be the only one that will admit that in areas such as these, we must in faith trust to the historical accounts of men that were involved in the translation process, and that this is in my estimation not something that we can or should be dogmatic about, as we would with what is in scripture itself.

So do you want to discuss how the Received Text came about, and the many men involved in that?

Do you wish to discuss the "reparation" of Jerome's work by a man that had a habit of stepping on as many toes as he could in a matter that could have ended his life? It is all very interesting.

Or would you like to look at doctrinal issues? So far...you have not, but you have avoided the doctrine of the conversation to affirm the superiority of my betters, yourself included.

But this is what I am coming to believe, KC: you like your position here, and perhaps that position is threatened. Your constant mockery of Christians backfired a little on you in your thread about "feigned piety," didn't it? When at least one member was able to look at your pompous words and conclude that you yourself are guilty. Believe me, I take no joy in something like that, but see it as shameful. I felt bad for you, really.

So you have, like I said, set the table. And I look forward to discussing things with you. I tried to leave you to your niche, but if you want to take a hostile posture, I am okay with that as well.

(13-06-2012 09:30 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Your grandmother only speaks Russian. Your native language is American English. She has a message for you. She wrote it in a notebook.

I want you to list the circumstances from 1 to 7 (1 being the best 7 being the worst) on how to get the most literally accurate message from what your grandmother wrote.

A) You speak Russian fluently. You read the letter.

B) You take the letter to a Russian language expert, and he translates it to you in it's most literal sense. Russian word to English word.

C) You take the letter to a Russian language expert, and he translates it to you in English. He only changes sentence structure and grammar to make it coincide with English rules.

D) You take the letter to a Russian language expert, but he doesn't know English. He only knows French. He translates the letter into French. He only changes sentence structure and grammar to make it coincide with French rules. You take the French translation to a French language expert that translates it into British English.

E) You take the letter to a Russian language expert, but he doesn't know
English. He only knows French. He translates the letter into French.
He only changes sentence structure and grammar to make it coincide with French rules. You take the French translation to a French language
expert that translates it into British English. You take the British English translation to an English grammar expert and have it translated into American English; as to remove any idiosyncrasies.

F) You take the letter to a Russian language expert. He reads the letter and tells you the gist of it. He does not translate it literally or word for word; however, he simply tells you what the letter says.

G) You take the letter to a Russian language expert, but he doesn't know
English. He only knows French. He translates the letter into French.
He only changes sentence structure and grammar to make it coincide with French rules. You take the French translation to a French language
expert. He reads the letter and tells you the gist of it. He does not translate
it literally or word for word; however, he simply tells you what the
letter says from the French translation.

So the question is...is the content of the letter understood?

That is the bottom line.

One person I know that is very KJV Only does make a good point concerning the King's English: it is richer than our modern speech. Of course, we can look at the difference between the Hebrew and Greek and admit that it also is richer than Modern English.

But giving the fact that there will always be the religiosity of those that are traditionalistic in their approach to God's word, found at all times that scripture has been translated from the original language, it is best to deal with that on the terms of those that fall into this error.

That is, kind of like dealing with children: goo goo...gah gah. lol

Because unless the content and intent of God's word is expressed and understood by the hearer or reader, none of it makes the least difference to anyone.

Consider:


Quote:So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse: or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvile;



Also:


Quote:Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.



Both of these quotes are taken from here. I would highly recommend the reading of it in regards to translation. I see in it the heart of the translators which I see as hearts of integrity that have as their goal the intent of getitng God's word into the hands of people, and that those people might understand in their own language that which God wills for them.


The claim of the "intellectual" and those that view the word of God to have been corrupted show an amzing ignorance of this issue to begin with. it can be seen in the Preface of the KJV 1611 that these men were aware of translational issues, to include language barriers as well as barriers imposed by religious rulers that for self gain sought to discredit them.

So it is not an issue that has been brought to light by "the last 175 years of biblical scolarship/study," an ignorant statement in itself, but one that is ancient.

It is an interesting topic, but, one that does exactly what is usually done here, that is, it distracts from God's word to the point that His word cannot be discussed.

And while I can certainly understand the efforts of unbelievers to employ this tact, it is sad to see it empolyed by one that claims to represent Christ and His word.

So, the exercise is a good example, but, it is just not relevant. Not to the discussion we have previously had, nor to the discussion that I look forward to in the future.

So, the ball is in your court, my friend...it is your serve.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 11:44 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
You are really are impossible.

This has blown up because you are unwilling to accept the simple fact that the NASB is the most accurate modern translation.

That's all I was pointing out, and in fact, trying to help you.

It was your pompous attitude that sparked rebuttal.

As far as feigned piety... no... pretty much everyone agreed with me. It was called into question, but I answered it.

My position here is a member of a community. Anything thing else that is fabricated in your mind is on you.

I have a problem with Christians who are unwilling to be open when it comes to doctrine. When faced with facts, you just stick your head in the sand and drone on in non-sequitur fashion while serving up a large dose of stawman with a side of ad hominem.

Your actions are in a very stereotypical fashion of a pseudo-intellectual theist trying to combat intelligent atheists. You hurt the fragile relationship between the two that I have worked very hard to create; it is based on openness, mutual respect, and an ability to accept that you aren't right.

You're so prideful in what you believe that you cannot see anything else; even if it's presented in the plain fashion.

You "lost" your patience with me after like 2 posts.

This shows you were unwilling to listen and take to heart anything that was said.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
14-06-2012, 12:02 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(14-06-2012 10:15 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(14-06-2012 09:54 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I will reverse the order of these posts, as I think it may help both of you.


Not sure how you come to the conclusion that I have ignored KC. In point of fact I have not, but, have tried, unsuccesfully, to be patient. If you feel I have ignored KC, perhaps you might go back and read the exchanges so far, and perhaps take note of the conversations.

It seems that loyalty to a translation gives this person the authority to mock and ridicule, and despite the fact that it is ridiculous to both say "Use the NASB" and ignore the fact that I recommend one not stop at a translation, it seems this individual has taken a dislike for me, despite the fact taht he knows very little about me.

I would also ask that you give attention to what brought up translations in the first place, which is the subject of the New Covenant. Seeking to obscure the focus of discussion by claiming superiority of knowledge in himself as well as those that constantly attack the veracity of God's word is amazing. Luckily, I am not the only one capable of seeing the hypocrisy involved in a person bent upon himself...making a mockery of both Christians as well as the word of God, aligning himself with those that are openly hostile to God and His word.

Amazing.

So I recommend that you take a look at the conversation again, and then tell me honestly that I have avoided KC. I think the public record will show that this is not the case.

But, since you bring it up, I will admit that I have prayed for and about KC, and how the Lord would have me deal with this individual. And I can only hope that the direction of conversation has God's blessing and that it is not just a matter of anger, which for the record, I feel to be justifiable.

There is certainly something to be learned here, and I eagerly await the instruction that I am confident will be forthcoming.

/eyeroll

It has nothing to do with anything that you just ranted about.

I simply pointed out that you are using a translation that isn't accepted as the best in the realm of theology. It has nothing to do with me saying that God's word is corrupted or whatever.

Translations are corrupted. Also, you use KJV and NIV - two translations that are opposites. One of them has to be corrupted. Either the NIV is right with their verse deletions or they are wrong and the KJV is right.

Either that, or you can accept that translations are corrupted, and that the only way to empirically glean the most accurate information from scripture is to get as close to the original language as possible.

That's why the NASB is accepted as the most accurate modern translation.

This isn't opinion. This is fact.

I don't understand why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around.

Why you don't understand, well, I have my thoughts as to this, but, to be fair, I would prefer to let you illustrate this yourself, as this usually is the better route for the sake of reproach. It may take a bit longer for the lesson to sink n, but, it will be better embraced in the long run.



Quote:I simply pointed out that you are using a translation that isn't accepted as the best in the realm of theology. It has nothing to do with me saying that God's word is corrupted or whatever.

Well, I like to think there is a method to my madness, and it yet remains to be seen the result of my choice of translation in speaking to others.

As far as the "best," I have to disagree, seeing that I have found what I consider to be poor translations in all of them. As a matter of fact, most credible scholars would probably, in the vein of those that seek to perform their trade to the highest potential, admit that even the work which they have done to date could be improved.

To cling to a particular translation is saying, "It is perfect, no further work needs to be done." This is absurd. Look at the changing nature of the English language, for example. In my lifetime I have seen some changes in speech and concept that warrant almost translation in themselves. Even one generation apart, we can have a younger generation's speech significantly different from the prior one. Skip a couple generations, and the difficulties increase.

A comedian joked about this, concerning how the language seems to be dumbed down. His example, the word "brother." It went from brother to bro, and he asks, what's next...br (in which he simply pronunces the sound this makes).

But this is an argument against the KJV (one of them): no-one understands the language. Well, this is why we have men to make God's word understandable to us, regardless of the language it is translated into.


Quote:Translations are corrupted. Also, you use KJV and NIV - two translations that are opposites. One of them has to be corrupted. Either the NIV is right with their verse deletions or they are wrong and the KJV is right.

And it is my guess that because of this view, it is doubtful that you will ever be able to set forth a Gospel presentation. Because what you are saying is, "Trust what scripture says, even though scripture has been corrupted."

The NIV and the KJV are not, as you suggest...opposites. This is an absurd statement that has no basis, and when you actually incorporate textual criticism into the mix it becomes more clear. While textual criticism is neither the basis for my belief nor am I opposed to it, I am opposed to statements like this which I consider to have motivations which are less than honest, and lacking in integrity.

And like I said, I expect this from those that have not looked into scripture in either an honest historical, contextual, or doctrinal manner, but it is unsettling to know their is someone that claims to represent Christ and Christianity making statements like this.

But, that is one reason I am here. It is the doctrine and motivations of the Benny Hinns and Bakers that I question, and not only that, but hope to bring into focus for a closer examination by those here. In your statement when you slandered my "reputation," you say I am harmful to christian/atheist relations. I would suggest to you that there are no christian/atheist relations, only command for obedience to the truth which allows us to relate to atheists.

You take Paul's approach a little too far..."I have become all things to all men."

If you cannot interact with those that are opposed to God without picking up their beliefs, you really should not attempt it. It is a dangerous endeavor to be sure, and not for everyone. This is why I try to limit my visits to a forum day, because while I highly enjoy the interaction, which has the occasional blessing, it is not a game and it is important keep oneself immersed in in truth along the way. That is...immersed in God's word.


Quote:Either that, or you can accept that translations are corrupted, and that the only way to empirically glean the most accurate information from scripture is to get as close to the original language as possible.

I said that in our first exchange, I believe. Yet you felt it necessary to insist I use the NASB.

Tell you what, if you want to discuss doctrine, I will use the KJV, you use the NASB, and we will take it from there.

I will reiterate that, as I said in the beginning, that this would be better on a Christian forum, as I view myself as a guest here, and do not wish to anger those that come here for the express reason that their exposure to God's word is fiiting with their view of it.

At this point, however, since you disregard everything I say, to focus on strawmen and red herrings, I have no desire to discuss anything with you anywhere...but here. My apologies to the members if this aggravates, but I really do not know how any other course of action will suffice. You see, it would really be against my view of what is right to encourage you in areas apart from your own territory, which to my knowledge, consists of this forum and facebook. Was it feigned piety, KC, to boast of humiliating others?


Quote:That's why the NASB is accepted as the most accurate modern translation.

You say this as though there is a room somewhere where twelve men in black robes have decreed this. lol

But, when we look at this from a practical view, we have to deal with the fact that because there are many translations, we have to meet those we speak to on and in their own terms. This is simply a straw man intended to show superiority, it is an old tactic, and it is an uneffective tactic.

No one really cares what translation you read from, KC. That has been expressed in this thread itself.

It is the content of what you seek to teach that is important. Will you stop the KJV Onlyist from expressing his position and say, "Wait, you are in error because you are reading the wrong translation?"

How far are you going to get discussing doctrine with him/her?

Will those that reject the notion that God's word is truth, much less preserved...care which translation you personally feel to be the best? Will that keep them from holding you in derision? Will it do that which the word of God tells us that it will do, which is to expose man's heart to the will of God?

You are trying to plug the dyke while the tsunami is on the way. You are concentrating on fringe issues instead of focusing on what you should be, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You are not called to lecture people about what translation they should use, nor to mock and ridicule those that profess to be Christians, but to preach the Gospel.

So you betray yourself in your speech, and I can tell you this, until your focus is taken off of yourself and placed upon Christ, you will continue in this pattern.

Quote:This isn't opinion. This is fact.

Says...who? Scholars? Not all of them. Many choose to preach out of the KJV. Will you ay they are not credible scholars? And you are?

Quote:I don't understand why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around.


Well, I hope we can dialogue in a manner that will be profitable to both of us. As of yet, however, you seem unwilling to do anyhting but try to express your own greatness.

And it just isn't working.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 12:28 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Congratulations. You win. You're impossible.

You love to ad hominem and strawman ad infinitum

You managed to write all of that while sidestepping and not answering questions.

You went on and on about the KJV and NIV (And Benny Hinn?) but didn't address the question I raised about deletions.

You also can't understand the difference between translations being corrupt and scripture not being corrupt.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
14-06-2012, 12:36 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You are really are impossible.

This has blown up because you are unwilling to accept the simple fact that the NASB is the most accurate modern translation.

That's all I was pointing out, and in fact, trying to help you.

It was your pompous attitude that sparked rebuttal.

You really believe this, don't you. Reread the exchanges.

What you don't understand is that I try not to question how the Lord works through some people. I offered to discuss theological matters on another forum, tis for your sake, not mine.

And even now, you are still stuck on translations. And you say I avoid doctrinal issues? Still waiting for a comment on the New Covenant, other than "new isn't in this verse." That was actually a built in point in utilizing that particular verse. You missed that, though, your intent was never, it seems, to discuss the doctrine, your only contribution was to focus on my error.

Admit it.

While new may not be in that verse, the verse does speak of the New Covenant. Rather than recognize this, you felt it necessary to insult, rather than look at the big picture. You really have to question that. You. Yourself, personally.



(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  As far as feigned piety... no... pretty much everyone agreed with me. It was called into question, but I answered it.

Gota question this too. Imagine, a group of atheists agreeing about mocking ridicule of Christians.

Wow, you really have a great approach there, fella. Oh well, as long as the likes keep coming in, who cares if you contribute to their contempt of Christians and make sure that the basis of their belief is never called into question.

Incredible.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  My position here is a member of a community. Anything thing else that is fabricated in your mind is on you.

I agree, you are strongly fitted, and perhaps suited...for this community. Thankfully there are a few here that think for themselves.

They are the reason I continue to come here.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I have a problem with Christians who are unwilling to be open when it comes to doctrine.

Me too! Hey, we agree on something!

So, lets review: you say scripture has been corrupted, and get applause by the community.

I say that the intent of God's will has been preserved through the millenia, and get condemned for my belief in fairy tales.

As far as being open concerning doctrine...try me. I offer this to any I speak to. I have no need to be close with my beliefs, the basis is public domain, and nothing is hidden.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  When faced with facts, you just stick your head in the sand and drone on in non-sequitur fashion while serving up a large dose of stawman with a side of ad hominem.

What facts?

Evolution?

Amillennialism?

I am just not sure how I can be said to have stuck my head in the sand.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Your actions are in a very stereotypical fashion of a pseudo-intellectual theist trying to combat intelligent atheists.

First, I have never once claimed to be an intellectual. I am about as common as a man can get.

Secondly, if you feel that the attacks on Christ and the word of God have been intelligent, my friend...you simply have no discernment whatsoever.

Are you also one that believes that Paul usurped the true Church in the first century? That Christianity is a cult?

Incredible. Fortunately, the discussions are there for those that are not concerned about "fitting in" to judge.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You hurt the fragile relationship between the two that I have worked very hard to create;

While you may think you are creating a bridge, you present to me the lowest form of ecumenical kowtowing that can be sought after.

Understand, Christians do not grovel. They do not conform to this world, but seek to live separate from it. Nowhere does scripture commend this kind of effort. It is disobedience to the word of Christ and it is a disgusting display.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  it is based on openness, mutual respect, and an ability to accept that you aren't right.

Of course it is.

The problem is, this isn't the case. It seems more that you hold more to their beliefs and mannerisms than to that which scripture commends believers to.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You're so prideful in what you believe that you cannot see anything else; even if it's presented in the plain fashion.

Examples?

You mean like how you have thoroughly proven that the KJV cannot be used to discuss scripture? Like you have proven the intelligence of my antagonists, despite the fact that most replies are more reminicsent of teenage behavior than reasoned dialogue? I mean really, would you care to give us commentary on...the farting preacher?

Listen, I am opposed to the error that goes on in Charismatic circles, and I will do what I can to speak to those about certain doctrines that are in obvious error, but...I will not use them to glorify myself, as you have done.

This is one of the most distasteful tactics employed by many, and not just in theological matters, it is an ever-present aspect of humanity. And it is this: first, find a pigeon, and ridicule them, and by this make yourself look good. It is no different than the story of the Publican and the Pharisee.

"I thank thee O Lord...that I am not like this man."

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You "lost" your patience with me after like 2 posts.

I believe it was three...but who's counting.

It is true, I have far less patience when dealing with those that claim to represent Christ, yet, by their words show that they are a far more dangerous enemy of the Cross than atheists, even their zealots, will ever hope to be.

An old saying goes, "The single greatest cause of atheism in the world is...Christians."

And this is true. While we are growing, and will at times bring shme upon the name of Christ by our actions and behavior, we should by the correction that God's word affords...grow up.

(14-06-2012 11:44 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This shows you were unwilling to listen and take to heart anything that was said.

And just as in this post, nothing relevant has been addressed. It is simply a matter of exchanging our opinions of each other, nothing more. Very unproductive indeed.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 12:48 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(14-06-2012 12:28 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Congratulations. You win. You're impossible.

You love to ad hominem and strawman ad infinitum

You managed to write all of that while sidestepping and not answering questions.

You went on and on about the KJV and NIV (And Benny Hinn?) but didn't address the question I raised about deletions.

You also can't understand the difference between translations being corrupt and scripture not being corrupt.

And you, despite all the grand presentation, have not so much addressed the relevant comments concerning translational issues. There is much there to pick apart...go for it.

As far as "translations being corrupt," I view only one translation to be truly corrupt, which is the New World Translation, the history of which predates Jehovah's Witnesses, by the way.

Their error? Rather than translating, they changed it, truly adding and subtracting to make it accomodate their doctrine.

I do not believe that most translationsare works produced by this type of wilfull deceit.

While we recognize the problems faced by those that labored in the work of transmission, it is textual criticism itself that validates the word which we have today.

And if we take this to a doctrinal level, most scholars will agree that of the differences found in the manuscript evidence in our possession, none affect a single primary doctrine.

It is the intent of God's will that has been preserved, despite the fact that some would focus upon how His will has been preserved.

This is why I would suggest a study of the KJV Only camp. Along the way you will be forced to look at the claims of both sides, which, in order to arrive at a conclusion that is more than simply in fiiting with what we want to believe, is a necessity.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: