Are 'Christians' allowed to Disagree with 'Jesus' and still be called 'Christians'?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriestthe Jerusalem bible is the only great translation and it's out of print. NRSV is pretty good too.

Just when I thought the KJVO movement had gone away...
Not even James White thinks the King James is a "bad" translation. LOL

a reply to: Punisher75KJV isn't bad it's just old, and we know about certain translation errors that ate too important to just leave. The NKJV
is bad though.

a reply to: Punisher75who is and who cares about James White?

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Punisher75KJV isn't bad it's just old, and we know about certain translation errors that ate too important to just leave. The NKJV
is bad though.

I have no real problem with more modern translations, I may have even used a few quotes in some of my posts when I thought clarity might be an issue. Personally I use a few different translations and an interlinear.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Punisher75who is and who cares about James White?

He is a christian apologist/debater and one of the translators of the NSAB

a reply to: Punisher75I prefer Catholic translations. NRSV is very true to the oldest known Semitic texts. Greek based translations I don't bother with.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Sigismundus

I would think that most Christians wouldn't endorse this kind of thing.

8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

I would think most Christians would think that such a person should be put under confined supervision to stop them from harming themselves.

You're pretty unfamiliar with hyperbole huh?

a reply to: Achilles92x

Most of the Bible and ALL of religion is hyperbole.

a reply to: Sigismundus

First of all, we are not sure whether the words of the "greek Jesus" written 2 centuries after the events, are authentic words of the historic Jesus or not. Or fixed and refixed by elders over again, until being stamped in Nicaea.

It is strange that out of several dozen Gospels that resurface now, some pretty well preserved and old documents, ONLY in the 4 canonical Gospels the wife of Jesus is not said to be a such. Nevertheless, they all mention Mary Magdalene as the female most close to Jesus (along with the male John).

I am not follower of sagas like Dan Brown. But if Jesus had descendants that changes the picture of Christianity grossly. All the pile of doctrinal books could be sidelined for good.

Back to your question, I think a real Christian is the one who tries to follow the real Jesus, not doctrines. Even in the so much tailored Gospels we still read how one should give food to the poor, how one should be a peacemaker, etc. Things, that strangely why no Christian ruler ever tried to implement in practice. Something more, the elders claimed that would be the property of the Antichrist...Actually they want never to be fulfilled those good words coming from a good Lord. They accent on rules and restrictions, that we are not quite certain who put them there in first place. The Christianity differs little from Judaism if you cut off the LOVE. And that was the case in the Middle Ages...

How about the image of the Manchild? He is not baby Jesus who was not raptured. He is a future figure that has to come. From above, i.e. from space. Why not descendant of Jesus. Perhaps the pharisees of today will call him "the antichrist".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree that part of following what was taught was to forgive others, but God forgives when I seek His forgiveness through Christ.

So, you're editing, adding to, qualifying what Jesus said?

Matthew 6:14
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.

And there have been multiple threads here discussing how forgiving others is as much for you as it is for them.

Indeed there have!

Jesus Didn't Die For Your Sins to be Forgiven

No, he is putting it into its proper context.

a reply to: JohnFisher

I agree that part of following what was taught was to forgive others, but God forgives when I seek His forgiveness through Christ.

So, proper context is qualifying Jesus statements with opinion?

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.[a]
10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread,
12 and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.[d]
14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Proper context indeed!

a reply to: Punisher75

You wrote QUOTE "Just when I thought the KJVO movement had gone away... Not even James White thinks the King James is a "bad" translation. LOL ..." UNQUOTE

Just for fun, here is some background to the various editions / reprints of the KJV [The King James Version of 1611]

First of all, the initial 1611 printing was so full of printers' errors it had to be reprinted with corrections in 1629 and again in 1638.

There were updates made between 1613 and 1639 for the purpose of correcting printing errors. The revisers included Samuel Ward and John Bois, two of the original translators. “Some errors of the press having crept into the first edition, and others into later reprints, King Charles I, in 1638, had another edition printed at Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr. Bois, two of the original Translators who still lived.

For the Hebrew Scriptures the KJV translators used/relied upon the Hebrew text family of the Leningrad Codex (c. 1008 CE) which is a late Masoretic text; unlike the Catholic Bibles which use the LXX Greek Septuaginta (BCE 200) which is based on different Vorlagen I.;e. Hebrew textual underlays.

The King James Translation of 1611 is based on the so-called Textus Receptus. This Textus Receptus is essentially the same as the Majority Text and the Byzantine text type.

For the New Testament, the KJV used only Alexandrinus (A - the so-called Textus Receptus) and the Bezae Biglot (D) = they had absolutely no access to later MSS discoveries such as:

Codex Sinaiticus (א)
Codex Ephraimi Palimsest (C)
Codex Vaticanus (B)
Codex Washingtoniensis-Freer (W).

So although the translators did the best job they could under the circumstances (Hebrew and Greek studies worldwide have come a long way since 1611) the King James Version certainly cannot be regarded as the be all and end all of translations - It is based on too few MSS.

The King James Bible contains some 791,328 words. Since 1611 Waite found 1,095 changes* that affect the sound throughout the entire 791,328 words in the King James Bible. Of these, the vast majority are minor changes of form, such as “towards” changed to “toward,” “burnt” changed to “burned,” “amongst” changed to “among,” “lift up” changed to “lifted up,” and “you” changed to “ye.” Obviously these are not real changes of any significance. [* Waite’s original report stated that he found 421 changes that affect the sound, but he later revised that to 1,095 changes.]

Following are some of the substantial changes:

1 Samuel 16:12 -- “requite good” changed to “requite me good”
Esther 1:8 -- “for the king” changed to “for so the king”
Isaiah 47:6 -- “the” changed to “thy”
Isaiah 49:13 -- “God” changed to “Lord”
Isaiah 57:8 “made a” changed to “made thee a”
Ezekiel 3:11 -- “the people” changed to “the children of thy people”
Naham 3:17 -- “the crowned” changed to “thy crowned”
Acts 8:32 -- “shearer” changed to “his shearer”
Acts 16:1 -- “which was a Jew” changed to “which was a Jewess”
1 Peter 2. Consider some examples:

Psalm 69:32 -- “seek good” was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to “seek God” in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 -- “the place” was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to “his place” in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 -- “thy right doeth” was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to “thy right hand doeth” in 1613.

Consider some famous printing errors that have appeared in printings of the King James Bible:

The Wicked Bible (1631) omitted “not” in “Thou shalt not commit adultery” in Exodus 20:14.
The Printer’s Bible (1702) read “printers have persecuted me” instead of “princes” in Psalm 119:161
The Vinegar Bible (1717) read “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of Vineyard.

By the mid-1760s CE the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. In 1769 there were a number of rewordings to whole phrases.

Here is a list of significant changes (i.e., changes which affect the meaning of a passage) made to the KJV text since 1611. The 1611 reading precedes the 3rd corrected publication of 1769.

•Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
•Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
•Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
•Ezekiel 24:7 – “pow'red it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
•Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
•1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

Additionally, even today there are two versions of the KJV in use: the Oxford and the Cambridge editions. Some of the differences in them affect the meaning of the text as well. For example, here are a couple Cambridge passages vs. their Oxford counterparts.

•Jeremiah 34:16 – “whom ye had set” vs. “whom he had set”
•2 Timothy 2:2 – “heard from me” vs. “heard of me”

Was the King James Version of 1611 perfect? If yes, why were there such substantial changes made to the text between then and 1769?

The King James has also perpetrated some major errors in translation. The following are just a few examples. Compare the KJV reading with that of the NIV which takes into consideration a larger pool of early MSS unavailable to the KJV translators.

Isaiah 45:7
KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
NIV: I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things.

Amos 3:6
KJV: Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
NIV: When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not YHWH caused it?

Luke 13:24 and 2 Timothy 2:24
KJV: Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
NIV: Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

1 Thessalonians 5:22
KJV: Abstain from all appearance of evil.
NIV: Avoid every kind of evil

By using a modern edition of the KJV, are not the 'KJV onlyists' admitting that the 1611 translation was in some way flawed?

Which edition of the KJV is perfect?

originally posted by: Sigismundus

Which edition of the KJV is perfect?

That was a pretty long post to attack a strawman.

a reply to: Punisher75
Totally off topic and I should prob just pm you but I appreciate your point of view. Even if I disagree with you. I find you argue with logic and appreciate that.

I am not a theist but I would like to gather some people who have different beliefs and can argue with reason to have better arguement and elevate each others thinking. Also find some common ground.

If you don't mindi will pm you though I fumble with it on my cell. Kinda Ill right now and the computer is a bother.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Punisher75
Totally off topic and I should prob just pm you but I appreciate your point of view. Even if I disagree with you. I find you argue with logic and appreciate that.

I am not a theist but I would like to gather some people who have different beliefs and can argue with reason to have better arguement and elevate each others thinking. Also find some common ground.

If you don't mindi will pm you though I fumble with it on my cell. Kinda Ill right now and the computer is a bother.

Get in line EVERYONE disagrees with me most of the time. =p
In any case, I like to argue at times... Argue in the more Aristotelian way anyhow. LOL

a reply to: Punisher75

Yeah I can be a d..... But I respect people with good arguements. Even if I disagree.

I still am thinking through middle knowledge. I was a little snide and shouldn't have been. I should have just stick to the arguement.

Can 'Christians' disagree with 'Jesus' & still be called 'Christians'?

a reply to: Sigismundus

Of course.

As long as they put the word 'Evangelical' in front of the word 'Christian'.

a reply to: Sigismundus

It should always be mentioned that the «Receptus Text» (TR) is a «modern» production belonging to the Protestant movement in the 16th century and onwards until the discovery of the other texts you mentioned. Not only was it the backbone of KJV, but also the Geneva and even Martin Luther's famous bible.

The TR is no longer seen as anything but a relic from the Reformation times, there are quite a few flaws woven in to its fabric, I call it the Devil's Bible for reasons found below. If you read the transition between chapter 12 and 13 in KJV out loud, you identify yourself with the Dragon, saying «And I stood upon the sand of the sea» and the verse is even moved between verses as if to hide it:

NA28 : [...] καὶ ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης.
ESV [Re 12:17] : [...] «And he stood upon the sand of the sea.»

TR : Καὶ ἐστάθην ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης [...]
KJV [Re 13:1] : «And I stood upon the sand of the sea [...]»

(The TR text used here is the 1550 Stephanus one). Just a single letter ν added in the TR and the whole book is turned on its head. The irony involved with this persistent typo in KJV and other protestant bibles is quite fitting I think.

Were Adam and Eve allowed to eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Nope, they did it any way. Remember what happened to them?
Lol jk who gives a crap, if you know in your heart you follow the Christ, it doesnt matter what others say.