ATTN: Call_of_the_Wild - 10 questions about your beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: ATTN: Call_of_the_Wild - 10 questions about your beliefs
Thread Split


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
26-02-2015, 09:54 PM
RE: ATTN: Call_of_the_Wild - 10 questions about your beliefs
(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  That's a fair enough run down. I can't say I have a positive opinion of either of those denominations. For 7th Day's it's mostly because of Ellen G. White and her cult-like beliefs and "visions" as well as her straight up heresy.

It's crazy, because when I was a young buck, back in like...93-94, for the most part, my entire father's side of the family attended a SDA Church...particularly my grandmother, RIP Sad

Now, we lived on the west side of Detroit, and the church was on the east side, so every Saturday, me and my dad would go to church...and I remember wanting to stay home and watch those good Saturday morning cartoons, but having to go to church instead. I haven't been to any church in a long time, and I don't know if SDA's are unique in this department, but church would start with everyone being split into age groups for Bible studies, and I, of course, would be in the children's study group. The church was nice, overall. But after my grandmother died, my pops stopped going to church.

They would hand out these "things" (I don't know what to call them) that were topic based, which would answer commonly asked questions...for example, they had one for hell, heaven, sin, God, etc...and I remember reading one of them regarding death, and that is when I got my first encounter with false Biblical doctrine...which is the "no afterlife" doctrine. And I remember being skeptical about that, even as a young kid.

But, as bad as you don't like SDA and what they are about....do you know who I can't stand? JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Angry Now don't get me wrong, the people seem to be more often than not kind, and loving, but the teachings..the theology..the organization, I can't stand. Right now I am currently waging war against those guys. I am currently having Bible studies with a witness in particular, and right now we are discussing the Watchtower "Should You Believe in the Trinity" literature.

Word of Faith...Frederick K.C. Price was the man...we used to watch him heavy back in the day, but now, I realized that WoF isn't the way to go.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  But... I know it's not fair to judge an entire denomination by one of its leaders/founders. John Calvin was kind of a dick and I don't want people judging me because of him. So, I'm open to learn more about that denomination.

Is the theology based on Calvin's teachings?

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Now... WoF... that's a different animal. I think I would rather support the KKK instead of them. At least the KKK kills their victims. WoF sucks everything from their victims and tortures them. They are horrible. Gonna stop here so I don't start ranting.

Go right ahead, you see what I just did above Laugh out load

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  That's a refreshing, honest response. I've studied it quite a bit. If you want to discuss it, please let me know.

Yeah, lets discuss this. What are your views?

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I can see you've discussed this quite a bit. We can talk about this if you're interested as well.

Unless there is something you really want to talk about, we don't have to. To me, the OEC and YEC debate doesn't necessarily change anything as far as I am concerned...but it is an interesting subject.

My view is, on the YEC view, I just can't see the earth being 6,000 years old...that just seems too young. I will say at least 100,000 years old on the YEC view...I don't have a knock-down argument for it either way...but 6,000 years old seems too young, especially when you consider a literal world-wide flood, like I do. I know Kent Hovind has a lot to say about this, but then again, so does Hugh Ross for the OEC view...which is why I am open.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'll be honest here... it is by far my weakest part of theology. I really don't like discussing it as it's kind of boring. But that's just me.

Not really one of my favorites either.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This raises some questions, but the ball is in your court. Let me know if you want to discuss these.

Yup, this one too.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I hope you don't mind interjecting my quick opinion here:

But... toss that NIV Study Bible or just use it for casual reading. Dynamic Bibles (NIV, NLT, Message, etc) are really bad for study because they take a dynamic approach to translation - ie - they translate an idea instead of words.

Moreover... the NIV... is just... well. Not good. Sorry. It isn't.

What's funny is, I criticize JW's for their commonly known BAD translations of their NWT. I am no Greek scholar in any stretch of the imagination, but even I can tell that some of the stuff in the NWT is just flat out deceitful. Now, with regards to the NIV, I don't want to be a hypocrite, so if the NIV is guilty of the same thing, then I'd like to know which Bible is the most accurate translation of the Greek scriptures.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Here's a quick exercise. Please do this. Look up these verses in your NIV Bible and I think you'll understand what I'm talking about:

Acts 8:37

It skips from verse 36 and moves to 38...of course, there is a footnote at the bottom, which seem to suggest that verse 37 was a later addition.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  , Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44 and 46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Rom 16:24, and 1 John 5:7.

It seems as if some verses were omitted because the earliest manuscripts did not contain them, so they took'em out.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Literal translations are much, much better for study. Some literal translations are KJV, NKJV, NASB, or ESV. Out of those, the most accurate and easy to read is the NASB followed by the ESV. I stick with the NASB as I consider it the best of the modern literal translations.

Ok...I will look into the NASB...as long as I can get a study version of it.

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You also have direct literal translations (I made this term up because I don't think there is an actual term to describe them other than "literal"). With the direct literal translations you get just that... direct literal translations - English be damned - from the Greek and Hebrew. The two main players in this are Darby's and the YLT. I suggest using Darby's because it's much easier to read. Sometimes the YLT is like reading a drunk KJV version.

The benefits of the direct literal translations are that they translate the actual language of the verse without it trying to make the English fit.

By this you mean the Greek on one side, and English on the other?

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  So, in summary:

Use your NIV for casual reading and an NASB/Darby's combo for study.

Right now I am in the process of gradually reading the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation...that would be a NASB/Darby thing, right Big Grin

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  This is something that I would like to discuss if you want to. ANE stuff and Greek and Hebrew are very important to understanding the Bible... IMO anyway. I know some people will disagree.

How proficient in Greek and Hebrew should one thrive to be? Intermediate? Expert? Native Tongue? Laugh out load

If you'd be so kind, I'd like you to give your analysis of John 1:1 and the JW's insertion of the indefinite article "a"...this is probably one of the most if not THE most controversial scripture in the Bible when it comes to the Greek-English translation.

What do you think?

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  That's cool. Again, something I would like to talk about if you wish.

Yeah, we can. You think that those books should have been canonized?

(26-02-2015 09:26 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Thank you for your honest and COMPLETE answers. You've been great.

You too Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 10:38 PM
RE: ATTN: Call_of_the_Wild - 10 questions about your beliefs
(23-02-2015 05:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 05:20 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  1: None, Atheist
2: Dont give a F***
3: ATHEIST
4: Dont even know what that means/Dont give a f***
5: The bible is a work of complete fiction.
6: Read above.
7: I had a kings james version... but i burnt it.
8: No clue
9: My first name is Hebrew for king.... thats all i know......
10: No, id burn them just as much as i did my bible.

wtf?

...like can people just not read or have lost all ability to decipher text?

Kind of hard to decipher text when the pages are on fire.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2015 02:55 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: ATTN: Call_of_the_Wild - 10 questions about your beliefs
(26-02-2015 09:54 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Is the theology based on Calvin's teachings?
Yeah, lets discuss this. What are your views?

It's funny that you asked that. Many Calvinists are more "Calvin" than John Calvin. I believe that God chooses salvation and controls every bit of minutia forever and always.

I believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. If He is all those things, then He HAS to control all (we have no free will). If He doesn't, He loses His omnipotence and becomes subjected to a human's whims. Also, God cannot choose to let us have free will because that is limiting His power (loses omnipotence) and God cannot contradict Himself.

Quote:Unless there is something you really want to talk about, we don't have to. To me, the OEC and YEC debate doesn't necessarily change anything as far as I am concerned...but it is an interesting subject.

My view is, on the YEC view, I just can't see the earth being 6,000 years old...that just seems too young. I will say at least 100,000 years old on the YEC view...I don't have a knock-down argument for it either way...but 6,000 years old seems too young, especially when you consider a literal world-wide flood, like I do. I know Kent Hovind has a lot to say about this, but then again, so does Hugh Ross for the OEC view...which is why I am open.

Cool. Yeah, I really don't feel like discussing it. I'm an Evolutionary Creationist (like Francis Collins). Basically, the difference between an EC and an Theistic Evolutionist is that we believe God is in active control over evolution as opposed to a TE that believes God set everything in motion and stepped away.

Quote:Not really one of my favorites either.

Good. Let's skip it.

Quote:Yup, this one too.

I believe the Bible is infallible (its teachings); however, I do believe that it is not inerrant (science errors, history error, etc). This does not take away from the holy nature of the book, though. It wasn't ever meant to be those things. It was meant as a spiritual teaching tool; infallible in that sense.

I wrote about this here.

Quote:It skips from verse 36 and moves to 38...of course, there is a footnote at the bottom, which seem to suggest that verse 37 was a later addition.

It seems as if some verses were omitted because the earliest manuscripts did not contain them, so they took'em out.

Yep, they took them out of the Bible. Something the Bible says to not do. They based this on manuscripts that they found; however, those manuscripts could have been incomplete writings. Regardless, the removal of verses should have never happened.

Quote:What's funny is, I criticize JW's for their commonly known BAD translations of their NWT. I am no Greek scholar in any stretch of the imagination, but even I can tell that some of the stuff in the NWT is just flat out deceitful. Now, with regards to the NIV, I don't want to be a hypocrite, so if the NIV is guilty of the same thing, then I'd like to know which Bible is the most accurate translation of the Greek scriptures.

Quote:Ok...I will look into the NASB...as long as I can get a study version of it.


Quote:By this you mean the Greek on one side, and English on the other?

Quote:Right now I am in the process of gradually reading the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation...that would be a NASB/Darby thing, right Big Grin

1) This is petty, but the parent publisher of the NIV also publishes the Satanic Bible.
2) The most accurate/easy to read modern literal translation is the NASB. The most accurate/easy to read direct literal translation is Darby's.
3) Yes. NASB study Bibles are everywhere. You may have a problem finding a Darby bible, though. If you can't, just look for a YLT (Young's Literal Translation). It's commonly used by Catholics. Like I said, though, it reads like a drunk KJV.
4) No I mean just a direct translation of the word or in some cases the idea (since we don't have some of those words in English.

I'll try and make an example:

Dynamic translation would say - "The rose in the garden."
Literal translation would say - "The red flower with thorns in the place where other flowers are grown."

5) Depends. If you're just casually reading, I would go for the NLT or, since you already have it, the NIV. There isn't anything wrong with dynamic translations. They are just not the best tools for study.

Quote:How proficient in Greek and Hebrew should one thrive to be? Intermediate? Expert? Native Tongue? Laugh out load

Nah. You don't have to be an expert. I just encourage study so you can accurately interpret what the context is what what the verse actually means. The understanding of Greek and Hebrew plus ANE history can greatly influence your understanding of the Bible.

Quote:If you'd be so kind, I'd like you to give your analysis of John 1:1 and the JW's insertion of the indefinite article "a"...this is probably one of the most if not THE most controversial scripture in the Bible when it comes to the Greek-English translation.

What do you think?

In the Greek, the article isn't there. But, there are also places in the Bible that don't have the article yet it is translated with the article. The problem is that Greek and English don't follow the same rail when it comes to articles. This is why you have to look at the context of the scripture, who was being addressed, and if it makes sense.

That being said, if you read v2-4 you'll see that John is describing Jesus and His deity; therefore, it makes no sense for "a god" to be translated. John is saying that Jesus is "God". It just doesn't fit in the context of the message.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Quote:Yeah, we can. You think that those books should have been canonized?

The only ones I would say should have been close to being canonized is Enoch and Assumption of Moses. They were both quoted from in the Bible and were considered holy scriptures back then.

Enoch presents the biggest problem, though. As you read through it, towards the end, you can tell it's been corrupted. It even reads like it's completely different authors. Somewhere along the way, Enoch got bastardized. I do believe the original Enoch was scripture.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: ATTN: Call_of_the_Wild - 10 questions about your beliefs
Here are some of my posts/threads I've written over the years. They require a little bit of reading. It's okay to skip the Ask a Theist thread, though... that thing is ridiculously huge. Anyway, if you want to know a little about me just read here or ask me.

Calvinism
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid182698
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...8#pid56708

Bible Translations
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-Corrupted
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...TN-Erxomai
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...00-literal

X-mas
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...iate-X-mas


Theistic Absolutism
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Christians


Lessons I taught
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid189843


Concepts of an eternal soul
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...lf-tonight


Feigned Piety
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ebook-note


I answer a lot of questions
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...er?page=16


Importance of history
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-Important


Perfect Creation
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...Christians


Creation account
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...on-Account


Separating person from beliefs
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ir-beliefs


Explanation of EC
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...reationism


Nephilim
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ible-Fight


Conversation
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-at-church


Random theology discussions
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...4#pid87274
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...9#pid55859


Purpose of sin
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...3#pid56293


My huge, massive thread
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...k-a-Theist

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: