http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ
Printable View
Interesting. I know about "King James only" Christianity. Are you one? What is the KJV only view of the Geneva 1599 version.?
I'm super rusty on my bible origins so I've forgotten why people accept the canonized versions under the rule of king James more than the Geneva 1599 which is an older version. I'm also still unsure about rejecting books like Enoch and Esdras. It's an interesting spin to make it a nwo conspiracy, though.
I wouldn't go by the label 'King James only' but I have done some study on how the KJV came together and the corruptions in modern Bible versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rosado
You should def. watch the documentary because they go through the history of the KJV including the Geneva Bible and it's significance.
As a side note for people who are unaware. King James did not change the Bible so that he could divorce his wife. King Henry was the one that actually banished the Catholic Church from England so that he could divorce his wife. When this happened, the common people were able to get the Bible in English which the Catholic Church was preventing.
Thank you for posting this.
You're welcome. I do have to say that I do not agree with the way they teach salvation at the end of the movie. They quote Romans 10:9-10 and say that all you have to do is confess and believe in order to receive salvation which you most certainly do but they neglect the role of Grace/Faith in Ephesians 2:8, God's mercy, repentance and baptism in Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:20-21.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicit
Salvation happens at the moment a person believes, repents, confesses and is baptized in water to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus though. That's all, you definitely do not have to be baptized in water to get to Heaven. No works, just faith. Jesus became a curse for us to do away with the curse of the law. Galatians chapter 3.
Without God's grace and faith in Jesus baptism is meaningless but baptism is the point that a person if forgiven and receives the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:38. Where in the Bible is baptism called a work ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicit
Any act is a work. If it isn't faith and simply believing, if it's you required to "DO" something in order to receive a free gift ie: Baptism, that wouldn't be faith alone. That isn't what the Bible teaches. You are required to do nothing other than believe Jesus Christ is the son of GOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
What about the Shake spear Conspiracy in the KJV? Psalm 46, 46 words from the beginning is 'shake', 46 words from the end is 'spear', the KJV Bible was written when William J. Shakespeare was 46 years old in 1611. It is kind of fun to look up anyways. I think the Catholic version is different.
I believe unicorns appear in the KJV as well. That's some poor translation work right there.
I've been told we have a greater understanding of the original languages in play and greater freedom from political forces than translators did during the time when the KJV was penned.
Color me skeptical. :)
No where does the Bible call baptism a work but Acts 2:38 does say that when you are baptized you receive forgiveness for sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. As I shared before, if you do not have faith in Jesus when you are baptized then all you did was get wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicit
'The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross' and 'James the Brother of Jesus' are interesting reads that put a different Agnostic approach to the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their relevance to other translations that had been made to construct the Modern English Christian Bible.
I would agree with you kinda... but there is an explanation as to why the translators used the word 'unicorn' in the KJV. If anyone is interested check out this link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/...mes-bible.html
I read it. And what I learned is that the Greek authors of the Septuagint did not know what to make of a word so they made something up. Then, the folks who penned the KJV merrily followed after this error, oblivious that unicorns did not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Rather underscores my point about a greater understanding of the original language. Computers also enable us to do word studies in a way that KJV translators could not.
But oh no!
“The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence,” notes Dr. Mitchel. “Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past.”
If you can find me a unicorn skeleton, I will publicly retract what I've said here, but short of that, the above argument is just embarrassing.
No disrespect at all to men who did the best with what they had. But we have better tools at our disposal now and do not labor under the yoke of a State Religion.
I find that compelling. :)
Oh, and I'm with Solicit on the baptism thing, but I'm wary of getting hip deep in a systematically theological study of salvation on a BJJ forum. I'm mostly Reformed and the thing I find compelling about reformed theology is that Jesus did all the work to save us. He didn't save the best people. You don't go to heaven by being better than everyone else. This is not a religion where you work to earn your salvation and the people who go to heaven are those who did the best on the righteousness bell curve. On the contrary: we're all so messed up that even if we could work hard enough to deserve salvation, we wouldn't really want to.
Based on what I've read above, that is what we all agree on and it's super important.
It's a remedy for pride (which is something I struggle with) and that aspect of the theology is one a lot of people don't understand. Salvation is not about being good and deserving it. You don't earn it. And even the good things we do are a result of grace in the form of sanctification.
(No friends, I'm not an antinomian, just trying to keep things simple)
I'm not trying to say that 'unicorns' were real. I guess what I wanted to share was that the word re'em (which no one knows the meaning of today) was mistranslated in the Septuagint and then a new word was created in English based on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I wouldn't say that I am KJV only but I am aware that the people who own the publishing houses are the same people that are pushing the New World Order agenda. I read different versions of the Bible and have the NT in Greek and use Greek lexicons. What impresses me about the KJV is the process that went into the rendering of the words that I don't think any other English version went through.
I know that my understanding of baptism is not the majority view within Christianity but if sharing my view causes people to read the Bible and think for themselves then cool. As far as this topic on Eddie's site... lots of different things are discussed here :)
So let's say there is a man who has hasn't been baptized and he gets in to a car accident and is going to die before help arrives. He has no time to be baptized and is literally about to die. You are saying there is no hope for him to go to Heaven? He is doomed to go to hell? He can't believe on Jesus and be saved anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
That is not what the Bible teaches and that is not by faith alone. It's either faith alone that saves, or it's not. Can't be in the middle.
Baptism is 100% an act and is simply a declaration of your dedication to GOD (Just like keeping the sabbath, passover, etc.), but it is NOT what saves you. If it is, than Jesus died in vain. Galatians 2:14-21
How is baptism not an act or work? It requires you to DO SOMETHING right?
There are many people that have never been baptized or died unexpectedly without being baptized that still can get in to Heaven. Teaching anything else is definitely not biblical.
That's super duper crazy-pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
See, you have to establish credibility BEFORE I watch your youtube video. :) It's 2 hours long bro. I could be reading Systematic Theology for 2 hours or...practicing my mini-stomp or something.
Crazy shouldn't take 2 hours.
Here's my conspiracy theory: people figured out that they could get free stuff if they just elected people who promised to give them free stuff. They're too stupid to ask where the money comes from or why the people they are taxing the crap out of don't just move to Canada or at least a different state. That's how you get Detroit.
There's no conspiracy, just stupid people who try to get freedom by giving ever-increasing power to the State.
See, that didn't take two hours. :)
I guess I would start by saying that God alone saves. He is the one who shows mercy on whoever he chooses to. This is why Jesus could say to one of the men who was crucified with him that he would be in paradise that day. The man was not baptized before he died on the cross yet God in the flesh, Jesus told him he would be in paradise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicit
We could come up with all kinds of scenarios like this and of course God has the power to forgive anyone.
I fully agree that a person cannot earn their way to salvation by being a good person or doing religious things. Galatians does not list baptism as a 'work' in verses 2:14-21. What I'm sharing is that Acts 2:38 says that when a person repents (changes their belief about Jesus and decides to live their life for him) and is baptized (immersed in water) that is when they are forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit is given.
What do you think about 1 Peter 3:22-21 ? This scripture says that baptism saves us.
So you don't think there are conspiracies shaping world events ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I believe the word used in 1 Peter 3:21 is "also". And Acts is talking about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ie: Speaking in tounges, prophecy etc. It never says that Baptism is what saves you. And if that scenario calls for GOD to save, as well as the criminal on the cross with Jesus, then that's proof that it's not baptism. All love tho man, not trying to argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Sure there are. But I reckon changing the world is very hard and two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead. A conspiracy is hard to keep secret and humans are a traitorous lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
After a lot of consideration, I've concluded that there are two major political forces in the world and have been pretty much the entire time.
There are people who want to be free. Such people are typically self-reliant. They want to retain their abilities to defend themselves and their families. Makers. Geopolitically, they want others to be free as well.
There are people who want to be rich from someone else's work. They want someone else to protect them, someone else to furnish their needs. Takers. Geopolitically, they want control.
Makers conspire to build. Engineers, craftsmen, entrepreneurs. Even managers to a lesser degree (though I think managers can be takers as well)
Takers conspire to take what others have built. Lawyers. Politicians. Sometimes bankers. Sometimes managers. People who have figured out how to make a living from entitlements. To a lesser degree, some unions (who do build a lot but do also seek to take something for nothing). Rent seekers, all. More ancient takers: raiders, some nobility, probably some clergy. Highwaymen. But always politicians.
Most folks fall somewhere between but this is usually because of some inconsistency in their thinking or because you can get a lot more by doing *some* work and then milking the cash cow you've constructed (perhaps in the form of class action shakedown lawsuits that enable you to sue a company for a statistical misrepresentation of employees along race / class / gender / orientation / etc. lines that you settle out of court for millions).
But you don't need a large scale conspiracy. It's more likely to be detected. Moreover, takers have no compelling and obvious reason to work together at a large scale. There are very large forces at work here: more then enough room for a taker to make a killing doing almost nothing except harm.
Here's one tool I've used to detect them: when smart people say stupid things, they are either A) not that smart, B) they're self-deceived, or C) they are lying or withholding something. Maybe all three.
No arguing... just sharing ideas and asking questions. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicit
Yes you are, but you are doing so nicely. Socrates and Aristotle never said "not trying to argue" why should you? lol :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicit
Socrates would approve! Socratic method ftw. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
If i was god (not saying I am but I could be and not know it. Im not sure if jesus knew his whole life that he was god?)
I would have written the bible myself, probably with lighting like god did in the 10 commandments movie because that was badass.
Now maybe Im busy creating people on some other planet and I just want to inspire the bible and have humans do the actual writing. (not sure why since I could simply will it into being effortlessly but ignore that) I would inspire them to write a book that everyone could understand without ambiguity, regardless of their age, language, intelligence, ect.
Since god must be smarter than me and could have done either of these things, we have to assume (assuming its not all bs) that he wanted humans to not clearly understand his wishes, he wanted us to be able to use the book to deceive and abuse people, he wanted to spread the bible over many areas and time and languages so we would have to collect all the writing and then throw out the ones that were not up to snuff.
Seems like a fucked god. I know, I know we arent supposed to question god because it is arrogant to assume we can understand his "plan", and we arent supposed to ask him to prove his existence to us either, seems a bit convenient to me.
One thing that troubles me about the idea of an all powerful deity is; could god microwave a burrito so hot , that he himself could not eat it?
Either way you answer, the conclusion is that his power is limited, if by nothing other than his own decrees/works.
Aaron,
You might be sort of right but I think you're probably not right in the way you think.
Before I respond I have to tell you where I'm coming from. I argue like I roll. I try to present my best move. I accept I might get tapped. I assume that even if I try something bizarre and then get beat that that's just how it goes. I attack where I see weakness and I don't apologize for it. I think we should argue like we roll: respectfully, but with all due aggression. So in that light:
That's a really horrible argument.
First, you assume that God is like you only smarter. That might not be true. But that's your foundation. My cat presented this argument to me and concluded that since there was no infinitely large can of cat food in the observable universe that there was no God. That was a pretty bad argument too. But he's a cat, so he has an excuse. ;)
Second, you assume that a God that is "f___ed" by your standards is not real. I'm a Calvinist. If you heard everything I had to say and you were comfortable with it, I'd be assuming you weren't paying attench.
In short, it's really a big long non sequitur.
If you are willing to assume a lot of things, then yes, you can assume your way into thinking that our God is bad. If you were willing to assume that bad gods cannot exist, well you would have assumed everything you wanted to prove!
Now, if you have *questions* about how we resolve these things, ask. Easier that way. Quicker that way. Easier for you too. Actually, questions are a very good method for dismantling someone. Feed them rope. Watch them hang themselves. :D
The microwaved burrito argument is actually pretty bad too. I believe it betrays (both on the part of the person asking and on the part of the person stammering awkwardly to try to figure out how to answer) a weak understanding of the doctrine of sovereignty, or basically the idea that "God is all powerful." The Bible itself never says he is per se. I do believe that it says that he is sovereign over creation.
You can express the question in simpler and less disrespectful terms. Christians also believe that God is unchanging in his fundamental nature.
So can God become evil?
No, I don't believe He can. He is sovereign over everything He created but I suspect that he is not sovereign over His own nature nor does He need to be. You might say "So, he cannot change?" He doesn't want / need to. Hardly a limitation. Entirely theoretical. Doesn't matter much. Not much scripture on the subject. Very poor material to attack the faith with because we never say "Dude, he could TOTALLY become evil AND he could TOTALLY eat a burrito of infinite hotness."
So He can create any size of rock and he can move any size rock. There is no contradiction in that.
You'd be better off with the classic Noah's ark argument.
It starts with "So you mean to tell me" and ends with a lot of spluttering and being very astounded that someone could believe that. But it *is* harder to defend. :) My cat tried that one this morning as I was trying to go to work and I just told him it was complicated.
Does that make sense?
Right, so can God unmake himself?
Probably not if only because it is not in his nature to try.
Hold on let me figure out how multiquote works.
Heres the wall.
No, I only assumed that god is smarter than me not like me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
Because your cat would assume that if god were like him (the cat) then god would make an infinitely large can of cat food? My argument is in no way based on the idea that god is like me. It is based on the premise that, god is smarter than me, god is all powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I didn’t assume that god is fucked. I put forth that if my hypothetical conditions are true, then he seems fucked to me. The sentence is somewhat nonsensical to me. What does the “is not real.” Part mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
That would depend on how you define, “comfortable with”. When you think something is most likely not true; the only thing that is scary about it, is the way that those who believe it may act, based on those beliefs. I do find Calvinist to be some of the least objectionable Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
Ok, that maybe. I was trying to be funny more than construct an argument that would withstand intense logical scrutiny. Please point out my flawed logic. What logical fallacy did I commit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
But I only assumed that god is smarter than me and that he is all powerful. Ok to be fair I also assumed that there wasn’t another equal or more powerful god, fucking with him, which would explain some things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “these things” but feel free to answer anything you see as a question in what I wrote. That rope thing is kinda sadistic for a christian who won’t even type, ”fuck”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
That’s interesting, genuinely no sarcasm. I had wondered before if it says god is all powerful. Still, if we look at the definitions of “sovereign” that pop up https://www.google.com/webhp#q=sovereign (pick your source) and the definitions of creation https://www.google.com/webhp#q=creat...nition&spell=1, it seems to mean that he is “all powerful”. I wasn’t aware that Calvinist believes the Abrahamic is not all powerful. How do you interrupt the relevant passages?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
What’s disrespectful about burritos, is this some sort of anti-Mexican sentiment?:) What terms are simpler than microwaving a burrito? In all seriousness I don’t see what is disrespectful about the question? I can’t mention god alongside mundane things like delicious microwave burritos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I don’t see how this is relevant or related. Strange though considering the apparent shift in attitudes between old and new testament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
You are asking and answering your own semi-related question? Ok. Your writing becomes difficult and hard to make sense of at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I’m not sure what it means to be sovereign over ones self. Does it mean in control of your impulses. Does it mean that you are not a slave or under another’s power? To me this is the type of flowery and nonsensical language that many christians use when dealing with cognitive dissonance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I might, in fact I do!Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
You claim to personally know the desires and needs of “god”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
Says you, I say it is an undeniable indication of limited power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
Very little in our reality is not theoretical. I agree that it doesn’t matter much but probably for very different reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
Why would their need to be, with faith there is no reason to question anything in the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I don’t consider it “attacking the faith”, just pointing out some things that seem odd/silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
You don’t need to make those claims for anything I wrote to stand. I didn’t assume or claim that god could “become evil”. I simply imply that is my premises were true; he would seem to me to be fucked or evil if you prefer. That does not necessarily require change btw, maybe he was always evil.
MOST christians do believe that jehova is all powerful, that would include being able to eat an infinitely hot burrito, without blowing on it.
I agree but you didn’t construct an analogues question. Could god make a rock so heavy that he could not move it? Also wtf is less offensive about a big rock than a microwave burrito. Is the burrito not macho enough for god?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
I don’t know what the classic argument is against Noah s ark. I do see room for a shit load of “So you mean to tell me”s. You don’t think your cat is god right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
Most of it , No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
You are totally asking the wrong guy. I don’t know, can he? It’s the same as asking, “Is god all powerful or not?”Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe
It also assumes that jehovah was “made”.
Ok that expands on the “gods sovereignty over his own nature” stuff a little. It strikes me as an illogical argument (circular reasoning) Its not in my nature to try to cum in my own mouth but I definitely could if I wanted to, standing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Jarboe