5 kinds of Christians........

[Mickalino]

You can access the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts also.

It's all Greek to me

[chipwhich]

It's all Greek to me

It's all Hebrew to me.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

In my opinion, to take anything from the old testament not written in Hebrew or from the new testament not written in Greek and accept it as Dogma is impossible. Translations will always mess things up. As someone who speaks English and Spanish fluently, I've seen some real screw ups when people attempt to go from one language to another.

Add to that the fact that people are translating things not just into another language, but across 3-4 thousand years of history, and I don't believe there is any way that people should be able to accept the word literally.

Then again, I'm biased. I'm studying to be a paleontologist, and no matter how religious I am, no matter how Christian I call myself (very), no one will ever convince me that the world is less than 10,000 years old and the fossils I dig up were wiped out by a flood. Sorry.

[Jumbo]

So if a person doesn't trust the Bible completely simply due to the fact that it was penned by man, that means they are trusting their own intellect instead.....which was derived by man.....see the contradiction ?

Which prompts the question...if any decision you make about belief systems...is inevitably the product of your intellect...how do you trust yours on anything????

(love ya Mick :pfft:)

[Zguy28]

Which prompts the question...if any decision you make about belief systems...is inevitably the product of your intellect...how do you trust yours on anything????

(love ya Mick :pfft:)

That's why I am a Calvinist.

[DeanCollins]

Maybe a reach considerig the OP's screen name. Not likely one chosen by a Fundamentalist.

So you're saying that FCs are immune to hypocrisy? :pfft:

[jobaga]

So if a person doesn't trust the Bible completely simply due to the fact that it was penned by man, that means they are trusting their own intellect instead.....which was derived by man.....see the contradiction ?

If you can't trust someone else's translation because they're man, then how can you trust your own translation if you are a man ?

I think you can trust the main ideas, just not all the details verbatim. No I don't think we should blindly trust any man, because we always have an agenda.

[Kosher Ham]

Not to throw this thread for a loop, but I have met several gay christians over the last 20 years or so.

I don't understand at all how that is even viable.

Interesting thread though, glad that you didn't make it a poll. Thanks.

[Destino]

That's why I am a Calvinist.

I must not understand that belief system because the way it sounds is that we're all just puppets.

[Jumbo]

Not to throw this thread for a loop, but I have met several gay christians over the last 20 years or so.

I don't understand at all how that is even viable.

Interesting thread though, glad that you didn't make it a poll. Thanks.

Not to encourage any loop-iness :pfft: either, but my sister's a born-again FC and she really can't get her head aorund that one. She gets stuck on how someone can actually advocate for, or even celebrate, a clearly identified sin as a basic part of a lifestyle and still call themslevs a Christian. Her point being that even with the understanding that everyone's a sinner, you're supposed to at least want to change and ask forgiveness for your falling short, even if you do so repeatedly. But you must at least sincerely regret your sinful actions and wish to atone. I have no important enough dog in the fight to challenge her over and over, I just leave it at her knowing we see things differently on any number of matters.

And it is an interesting way to set the OP and seems to be working well.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I think a lot of people also tend to have a hard time with what we called "strict literalism" in my theology classes because of some of the Catch 22s that the bible presents.

If we have free will, that would imply that when faced with a choice, I am completely empowered to sway one way or the other. However, if God is all knowing, he must know which choice I will choose. Therefore, did I ever have free will in the first place? Sure, I could have made the other choice, but God already knew I wouldn't, so could I really have made it?

I remember in philosophy we studied someone (at the moment I can't remember who.) He tells a story where he stayed up very, very late into the night trying to understand the trinity. He wanted to fully grasp how something could be three things and one thing at the same time. When he finally fell asleep, he dreamt he was on a beach in northern Africa, along the Mediterranean.

A young boy was running from the sea with a bucket, filling it, and dumping it into a hole. When the philosopher questioned him, the boy said he was going to fill the whole sea into the hole. The philosopher said it was impossible. The boy turned into an angel, and explained to him that in the same way, it was impossible for man to understand the trinity.

I think that if we accept this sort of thinking, that there are parts of God and Christianity that cannot be fathomed by mortal man, then we are assuming that, even if divinely inspired, the bible must have errors because some of it is beyond what we will be able to grasp.

[Kosher Ham]

I have no important enough dog in the fight to challenge her over and over, I just leave it at her knowing we see things differently on any number of matters.

That's how I feel about it as well. I just find it a curious "loop"-hole if you will.

If no religion is generally accepting of these lifestyles...then why do certain people who live in sin based on the religion...take up any religion.

Not that I really care, but I was curious about an explanation of it all.

Smart ass.

[Jumbo]

Smart ass.

But sometimes I am repentant and try to do better. :halo:

[DCSaints_fan]

Not to encourage any loop-iness :pfft: either, but my sister's a born-again FC and she really can't get her head aorund that one. She gets stuck on how someone can actually advocate for, or even celebrate, a clearly identified sin as a basic part of a lifestyle and still call themslevs a Christian. Her point being that even with the understanding that everyone's a sinner, you're supposed to at least want to change and ask forgiveness for your falling short, even if you do so repeatedly. But you must at least sincerely regret your sinful actions and wish to atone. I have no important enough dog in the fight to challenge her over and over, I just leave it at her knowing we see things differently on any number of matters.

And it is an interesting way to set the OP and seems to be working well.

The Gospels don't mention anything about homosexuality. So alot of them probably are "Gospels only".

[Destino]

That's how I feel about it as well. I just find it a curious "loop"-hole if you will.

If no religion is generally accepting of these lifestyles...then why do certain people who live in sin based on the religion...take up any religion.

Not that I really care, but I was curious about an explanation of it all.

Smart ass.

Why single out homosexuals? What about liars, the prideful, greedy, and those consumed with lust? I'd argue that in a nation where almost no one waits untold marriage and most believe in making as much money as you can... Gays aren't the only ones accepting a sinful lifestyle.

[Jumbo]

Why single out homosexuals? What about liars, the prideful, greedy, and those consumed with lust? I'd argue that in a nation where almost no one waits untold marriage and most believe in making as much money as you can... Gays aren't the only ones accepting a sinful lifestyle.

I've brought this up in here before a few times.

There are interesting implications to consider when homosexuality in particular (as regarded as a sin) receives so much more fevered attention and passionate public and political discourse from large segments of the Christian community over other sins that are supposedly "equal" in spiritual threat...

[TradeTheBeal!]

Group 6: Do what thou wilt.

[twa]

I've brought this up in here before a few times.

There are interesting implications open to examination when the particular sin of homosexuality (when regarded as a sin) receives so much more fevered attention and passionate public and political discourse from large segments of the Christian community over other sins that are supposedly "equal" in spiritual threat...

Well obviously a critical factor is in the openness factor(public sin vs private) and a continuing state after all I'm sure most of you note the change when someone is outed or a public advocate for a lifestyle.

The same holds true for other sins.

Sin is only equal as the factor separating us from God.

The consequences are not equal ,nor the continual practice of them

A lot depends on your belief in both salvation and security of the believer.

I have no problem understanding how a person can recognize their sin nature,repent and accept Jesus as the atonement for it,yet still sin.

Acceptance of Christ does not change your actions(free will) anymore than you allow it to,nor remove the consequences of it while on earth

The question I would ask is what other sin is celebrated/endorsed publicly?

Destino mentions greed,which I must say I have heard condemned much more often in church than homosexuality.(of course I was raised in one that would exclude ya for selling alcohol,much less drinking it:))

I know some gays that I believe are saved,much like me they tolerate some sin more than others.

Look to Pauls letters to the churches and you will find they each tolerated different sins...and he corrected them.

[mardi gras skin]

In my opinion, to take anything from the old testament not written in Hebrew or from the new testament not written in Greek and accept it as Dogma is impossible. Translations will always mess things up. As someone who speaks English and Spanish fluently, I've seen some real screw ups when people attempt to go from one language to another.

Add to that the fact that people are translating things not just into another language, but across 3-4 thousand years of history, and I don't believe there is any way that people should be able to accept the word literally.

This is a very good post.

The confusion between languages (across time, across cultures) is enormous. There are some sections of the bible that are less easily translated than others.

Additionally, there were slight variations in different ancient manuscripts that were found. In my Greek New Testament, there are various ratings (a, b, c, etc.) for the reliability of various passages. These variations almost always involve a dropped word or a word with a different ending...basic copy errors. But sometimes, there are whole sections that probably shouldn't have been included like Mark 16:9-20. Almost certainly not original.

All that said, the textual criticism work done on the Bible is unbelievably thorough. Having had a few Greek classes including textual criticism, I came away thoroughly at ease with the message conveyed in our English translations. Different translations have different strengths. Some of them carry the tone and feel of the text (viewing the text as an artform), some carry the literal, word for word meaning (viewing the text as scholarship) but they're all excellent.

Then again, I'm biased. I'm studying to be a paleontologist, and no matter how religious I am, no matter how Christian I call myself (very), no one will ever convince me that the world is less than 10,000 years old and the fossils I dig up were wiped out by a flood. Sorry.

The Bible (in any translation) doesn't try to convince anyone that the world is less than 10,000 years old either.

[mardi gras skin]

Oh, and as to errancy. Of course there are errors in the Bible we have. You can look at differences between two ancient Greek manuscripts and see differences, so yes, there are errors.

[mardi gras skin]

I'm a number 1. The bible, in its original manuscripts is inspired and inerrant. Jesus believed it and so did the Apostle Paul.

If it is not from God, and therefore truth, what authority does it have? The answer: none.

Without the objective authority of the Scriptures, people are free to do whatever they like without suffering any kind of ultimate consequences. This is the path to idolatry and unbelief.

This is a good post, too because it gets to the importance of inerrancy.

I believe the Bible is truth. I have committed my life to the God described in those texts, so I absolutely believe they are truth. But it doesn't really help me that the original manuscripts were inerrant if we don't have the original manuscripts penned by the authors. The God I have committed to is the one described in the texts we have. And those, clearly, are reconstructed from texts that have (minor) scribal errors.

But I had a remarkable opportunity to read a passage from several greek manuscripts that weren't exactly the same and I saw that they did, in fact, say the same thing. They are conveying the same idea. The texts aren't God so they aren't perfect, but they all testify to the same God and they don't disagree about the God they describe.

[DeanCollins]

Not to encourage any loop-iness :pfft: either, but my sister's a born-again FC and she really can't get her head aorund that one. She gets stuck on how someone can actually advocate for, or even celebrate, a clearly identified sin as a basic part of a lifestyle and still call themslevs a Christian. Her point being that everyone's a sinner, you're supposed to ask forgiveness for your falling short, But you must at least sincerely regret your sinful actions and wish to atone.

And to be a good FC, You must be judgmental and condemn others for not being JUST like you.

[Forehead]

A mix of #'s 3, 4 and 5. Definitely not #1.

[twa]

But I had a remarkable opportunity to read a passage from several greek manuscripts that weren't exactly the same and I saw that they did, in fact, say the same thing. They are conveying the same idea. The texts aren't God so they aren't perfect, but they all testify to the same God and they don't disagree about the God they describe.

Isn't that much like the different gospel accounts in that they are from differing perspectives/styles they affirm the same truth?

Different people will explain a event in a different manner,yet still present the same facts...just as a pencil and a brush wielded by the same hand differ yet are still capable of producing distinct image.

As long as translations/copies still project the correct distinct image they are worthy,tis when they are indistinct or turn to abstract that it is a problem.

[AzSkinsFan63]

Number 1..not even a doubt.

66 books, 40 different writers....1 author.

The book spans 1600 years and tells the whole story from the beginning to how it is going to all end.