Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!

reply to post by bogomil


What is not infallible about it? I'm afriad I have missed the question. Do you not take it litterally, or do you ascribe to the modern view of creation, i.e. big bang. Which is embarrassing....

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by bogomil

 

What is not infallible about it? I'm afriad I have missed the question. Do you not take it litterally, or do you ascribe to the modern view of creation, i.e. big bang. Which is embarrassing....

Again, you should really review this thread to find out some of the reasons that the bible is in fact quite fallible...

I don't think we need to to it all again, it already lead to the OP disapearing...

reply to post by KJV1611

I'm suppose to be judgemental when error is present! Surly you know this?!?!? And don't go quoting some scripture you don't understand like "judge not..etc, etc blah, blah"

I don't quote scripture i don't understand... why are you assuming i do? We've had discussions on your thread already if you remember... and your answers were insufficient.

Error, is a very subjective word... what you consider an "Error" may not be an error according to someone else...

This is the cardinal sin of modern Christianity

perhaps you forgot im not christian...

people now assume everyone shouldn't be judged?!??! My God, where did this idea come from?!?!

Your bible... Possibly your God? I forget if you're one of the people who think Jesus was God or not....

Christians are to judge all things, at all times, including other people BASED on the word of God. (this is the key sentence)

Open your eyes, they do exactly that based on their own translation of the bible, not the word of God.

And if we don't judge, like God told us too

I rarely do this but....WRONG!!

then God will judge us....

He will anyways, but thats for him to do....not you..... but do what you will, this is my belief not yours.

I would rather take my responsibility as a priest, and judge myself, so God won't have too....

So you must be "saved".. so you can do no wrong... you can always accurately point out "errors" of everyone else, and tell them its wrong. Perhaps even condem them to hell because of that error... sound about righit?

(again i forget if you're one of those as well, but i do remember something about "fire and brimstone preacher" in your thread... i think its a safe assumption)

Perhaps you might look over your own thread one more time... at least the small part where i was posting.

I think you forget who you're dealing with...

Then why post in religious threads if you are not interested in the Bible or in this case, a Christian? If I started posting in a subject thread that I had no use or interest in, I would be considered a troll, so what would this make you?

And nothing is wrong with Genesis 1 and 2. Science own laws state unless something is OBSERVABLE then it cannot be true science. So the big bang and other foolish notions take the exact same amount of faith to believe in as does the Biblical account. No one was there to see either event.

Thats why evolution is a religion, if takes faith to believe in it. Macro evolution at least, not adaptation, known as micro evolution.

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by bogomil

 

What is not infallible about it? I'm afriad I have missed the question. Do you not take it litterally, or do you ascribe to the modern view of creation, i.e. big bang. Which is embarrassing....

I would have believed, that now 30 pages on the subject of 'infallible' (from a considerable amount of perspectives) should have cut the parameters of the situation out in capital letters.

Concerning the relevant parts in this post of yours, I:

a/ Relate to the text of the bible (thread-title: Why God's words the bible is infallible), as it is successively presented to me in whatever form various 'christians' interpretate to be THE bible. Literalness is not my initial main-concern, but the concern of the christian supporting and interpretating any bible.

b/ What has Big Banging to do with my request of a reality-check on gen. 1? Please give me further details on why you asked such a question, so I can see, if it's more than rhetorical (or some building-up of an astrophysic version of creationism).

reply to post by KJV1611


You wrote:

["Then why post in religious threads if you are not interested in the Bible or in this case, a Christian? If I started posting in a subject thread that I had no use or interest in, I would be considered a troll, so what would this make you?"]

Please don't derail the thread into irrelevant tactical maneuvers.

Quote: ["And nothing is wrong with Genesis 1 and 2."]

That is what is to be seen.

Quote: ["Science own laws state unless something is OBSERVABLE then it cannot be true science."]

The operative word being 'observable'. You may be unfamiliar with the precise use of the word in science/logic.

Quote: [" So the big bang and other foolish notions take the exact same amount of faith to believe in as does the Biblical account."]

A question for epistemology, an interesting and valuable little detour looking at out bases. But until we've done that, your statement just stands as a propagandistic assumption.

Quote: ["Thats why evolution is a religion, if takes faith to believe in it. Macro evolution at least, not adaptation, known as micro evolution."]

If you are addressing me, I have already clearly said, that my interest lies with gen. 1 and 2 from a physics perspective, not with a debate of evolution theory, which only is a minor part of gen. 1 and 2 and generally outside my competence. There may be more qualified contributors answering to that.

So: Have you already adapted the 'tactics' of the thread author of being evasive?

Originally posted by toxicblud
Ever notice the word 'version' in King James VERSION. The word 'version' clearly indicates that this book is merely the interperatation of King James. I find it hard to communicate with grown adults who actually believe in Santa Claus. When one relies solely on faith or a book written by man as proof of his god's existence his existence is only further damned by faulty evidence. Blind faith is not proof, and should never be seen as such, for the minds of men will come apart on this day and intelligence shall be outlawed.

I see what youre saying but i think theres still meaningful things that can be learned from the Bible.

Originally posted by kevin32

Originally posted by toxicblud
Ever notice the word 'version' in King James VERSION. The word 'version' clearly indicates that this book is merely the interperatation of King James. I find it hard to communicate with grown adults who actually believe in Santa Claus. When one relies solely on faith or a book written by man as proof of his god's existence his existence is only further damned by faulty evidence. Blind faith is not proof, and should never be seen as such, for the minds of men will come apart on this day and intelligence shall be outlawed.

I see what youre saying but i think theres still meaningful things that can be learned from the Bible.

Undoubtly. There are many places you can learn things.

But to promote one complete book (with a mythologically based cosmogony) to ultimate 'truth' borders on megalomania.

The totally insufficient way such a claim has been 'supported' by and the absense of any christians able to go direct to the center of things should be an indication, and in other similar contexts would have been taken into future account.

But not when it comes to blind faith, where you just ignore inconvenient facts, and try the exactly same again 3 months later.

It's pretty pointless to try to argue here for the Bible and Christianity. They won't believe you anyway no matter how many scripture verses, theologian quotes, or sermons mp3s you link to they won't listen to it. Their mind is set and there is no changing it.

Originally posted by IlluminatusOculus33
It's pretty pointless to try to argue here for the Bible and Christianity. They won't believe you anyway no matter how many scripture verses, theologian quotes, or sermons mp3s you link to they won't listen to it. Their mind is set and there is no changing it.

It's possible, that you can't even see the irony in these statements.

You appear to operate on the assumption, that an 'argument' is a one-way spoonfeeding of propaganda-material from christian direction. Centering around the debate method of: "BECAUSE".

Sure..... opposition to this kind if christianity is pigheaded and obstinate, because we just don't passively fall in step to the 'because' and the irrational propaganda.

It's most unfair, that christian missionaries just can't tell people what to do, like in the good old days.

reply to post by bogomil


want some cheese with that wine?
______________________________________

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by bogomil

 

want some cheese with that wine?

______________________________________

Yes please, preferably a swiss cheese. The holes always remind me of certain kinds of reasoning-methods, where gaps are filled out with mythological 'becauses'.

Fortunately cheese is sold by weight, and not by cosmetic volume, so the price of even a cheese filled with holes is realistic, which isn't the case with cosmetic ideologies full of holes.

As I'm rather attached to this thread, I will give it a revival now and then, until somebody can give me a decent answer to it. So to speak making the thread born again.

The directions from where 'answers' have been forthcoming have been many and varied, for some reason mostly being relevant from non-theist or non-christian positions....

........whereas the christian efforts of supporting the initial claims of the thread recently ended in flippancy (which can be fun, if it goes hand in hand with a factual approach).

So any bidders on defending the fundaments of bible-paulinism?

Personally I'm even willing to take the whole 30-page guided tour through basic logic, napkinism, pastafarianism, applied science, the traps in run-amok semanticism and diversionary maneuvers once more, for the benefit of those who won't read the whole thread from the start.

My offer is ofcourse only valid until the day when Alzheimer's or death from old age catch up with me.

reply to post by bogomil
I think the Old Testament was a Zionist propaganda piece put together by exiled Jews in Babylon as legitimizing their position in the eyes of the Persian Empire, their claim on Zion.
People supporting the "God's Word can not be broken" concept for the continued support of the OT is because of modern Zionism and the wars they knew were going to be necessary to carry out their plans.
To me, it is pretty clear that other than a few lines of prophecy about himself, Jesus cared not much for the OT and meant to replace it with a new Testament.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

I think the Old Testament was a Zionist propaganda piece put together by exiled Jews in Babylon as legitimizing their position in the eyes of the Persian Empire, their claim on Zion.
People supporting the "God's Word can not be broken" concept for the continued support of the OT is because of modern Zionism and the wars they knew were going to be necessary to carry out their plans.
To me, it is pretty clear that other than a few lines of prophecy about himself, Jesus cared not much for the OT and meant to replace it with a new Testament.

Without any theistic implications on my part, but only relating to the principles resulting from your position, I'm in full agreement with you.

But sadly the OT-Jesus maverick controversy is mainly played out at a sandbox level on par with the McCarthy-Stalin clichée- and zombification ideology-conflict.

"Me good....you bad"

........where the bad guys will somewhat eventually and probably burn in hell; or already now suffer from the wellknown christian-psychology diagnosis: 'Non-theist psychosis', where individuals are under the delusion, that they are NOT Jesus, and they do NOT speak with 'god'. A terrible mental illness, the scourge of these 2.000 years regular end-times.

As you may remember, I have formerly mentioned the Zaddikite sect, and should this thread EVER get around to gen. 3, we may re-attach to your present post.

reply to post by bogomil


By all means! I will happily take you up on this my old friend/enemy! And just as you offered, if you could be so kind as to some how condense your point of view so I can begin our discussion? What was it that got you so attached to this thread and what is your issue with Paul..ism?

Make it short at first then we can get into deeper talks. I just need spun up....since you offered

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by bogomil & toxicblud

 

You two through patting each other on your backs

I see you have the troll tag team here in your thread too: Some are in mine.lol Yeah, am beginning to see how it works now..

But that's ok, I will go one step further...the King James Bible is better and more accuarte than the "original manuscripts" that Peter, Paul, Moses, etc wrote. The KJV is just as inspired and more so than the first writings of the church fathers. I of course don't make this claim without TONS of proof.
But back to the OP, Anyone know what Bible the Christians used before the 7 major english translations?? Anyone know that just as God has preserved His "words" in the Bible, so too has Satan made is own bibles and preserved them through out the years. They are known as the NIV, NKJV, NASV, RV, NLT, ASV....the list goes on for over 450 more perversions.

Amen!.... KJV only myself! Just wanted to comment, I at one time had a NKJV and thought it was ok but God showed me differently.... The NKJV is NOT of God, it omits verses, removes Lord from the Lord Jesus ofttimes, etc, taking away from the Lord Jesus! I could go on but it is a pathetic perverted version. Yeah, the devil couldn't get rid of the Bible, so he had to pervert it with all of the many other so called versions which are NOT Holy Bibles- far from it. Glad you made mention of this. As people grow in knowledge of the Lord, He WILL reveal this as truth - not saying that God can't use them but all other Bibles are counterfeits which try to take away from the deity of Christ.

His word iS infalllible when you look to the right book!

reply to post by SeekerLou


Incorrect, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt within this thread...

reply to post by SeekerLou

. . .all other Bibles are counterfeits which try to take away from the deity of Christ.

You are under some sort of delusion if you think this could be true.
The difference between the versions is the bits of old manuscripts used to get their translations from.
The version of collections of manuscripts used to make the KJV was made by the Catholic priest Erasmus.
This is the Textus Receptus, where he hand picked just the bits from the various available manuscripts that fit the theology he wanted to promote.
Modern Bible versions use a more scientific and scholarly method to compile the best textual instrument from which to make a translation.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Modern Bible versions use a more scientific and scholarly method to compile the best textual instrument from which to make a translation.

BHWAHWHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!........... ....BWHAHHWHAGGAHHWAHAHAHAAahahaaaa.....ha!

This was the best joke I read all day You do know the TR was based off of 89,000 bits of vellum, scrolls, and ancient manuscripts right? Th 5000 thousand different manuscripts you hear the TR being translated from are actual 5000 bodies of text. The 89,000 are all the "bits" combined.

Now with that said, do you want to know how many ancient manuscripts EVERY NEW BIBLE ON THE "MARGET" use as the bases for their translations? They use.......4.

Only four manuscripts (and crappy ones at that) to have a more "scientific and scholarly method" to compile their new perversions. 4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is simply pathetic. The KJV used 5,000.....ALL the new bibles use....4...if that! Some on use 2!!! (A, and D)