Talk to a JW: Idolatry/crosses/saints
- Thread starter Mohrb
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Nick said:
Hi Nick
Which translations do you believe are 100 % accurate ? And could you give a good explanation along with your choices please ?
mm, if what you are saying is true what to say that another book that adds that jesus merely feel asleep and didnt die on the cross, but dies in old age. and then men would come to lie about the prophet who died for teaching good works.
hypothetically speaking.
hypothetically speaking.
jasoncran said:
I think the important point is that the -Bible- is divinely protected... all translations should say essentially the same thing. However, no translation will be word for word 100% perfect... because no language will a set of words that 100% match the set of words in the original languages. There is no such thing as a perfect translation because "translation" is the act of paraphrasing, using a different language. A "perfect translation" is as possible as a "perfect paraphrase." ... as close as one can get, it can't be "perfectly identical" to the original words... without being the original words.
For example... in the 4 gospels, the same events are described in slightly different ways. The facts are the same, but each author may have a slightly different way of describing it. Likewise, any translation will be divinely protected enough for the facts to remain intact... but no translation has "100% perfect" wording... simply by virtue of it being in a different language.
Does comparing the wording in various translations to the wording in various gospels make sense?
Also, I think an important question above was ignored:
Whoever believes that there exists a 100% perfect -translation-... which translation do you believe is 100% perfect, and why?
I don't think anyone who knows a second language will be able to answer that one.
I don't believe I or anyone could say which one, just that I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be one[/quote]Mysteryman said:
Hi Nick:
Think about this please ---- In the first century, there were no bibles. There were apostles , prophets, evangilists, pastors and teachers. They didn't carry a bible with them. Paul in the seven church epistles, mentions the OT from time to time. Yet they believed , not according to what the bible said, but according to what the apostles and prophets told them, especially the apostles. Then the Spirit of God moved upon their hearts. Paul told the church, that he wrote his gospel on their hearts, and not with paper and ink. So theoretically, you can throw your bibles in the trash can, and God can still move His Word in the hearts of the believers.
We only use our bibles as reference material. And even then, many come away with many private interpretations of what they read. Even if there was only one bible and not many, and all read the same bible. Even then, we would still have many divisions of beliefs. It happened in the first century church when there were not any bibles. So it could easily happen , even if there were only one bible to read from.
Now compound that , with the many, many translations we have today. We actually have chaos because of the many translations, to be honest with you.
Way too many people believe that they can read their bibles , and what it states in their bible translation is suppose to be the actual God breathed Word. When in fact, it is far from it.
Our translations have been altered in such a way, that you can not claim that there is a 100 % written bible out there. Not only that, but the texts from which they came are not 100 % accurate either. So we have quit a quandary .
How many times have you heard a preacher stand up and say -- "The bible says" ? The first time I heard a preacher say this, it did not dawn upon my pea brain, that what he was actually saying was ; that if the bible says it, that settles it. I came to realize, that these types of preachers have no clue of what they are talking about. They should be saying -- "If God said it" -- "that settles it".
If the first century grew without a bible translation. The same should hold true today. For it is God who gives the increase anyways. And there is nothing "Holy" about your bibles. They are only as good as the people who did the translating. And even then, they are only as good as the text from which they were translated from.
Nick said:
Hi Nick:
I don't believe I myself or anyone else can aswer your question as you posed it. However, i will say this --- When Jesus was being tempted, his reply to the temptor, was this -- "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".
The spoken Word always came first. Only the spoken Word has any authority or validity. Once something is written down, it can contain flaws . Because it is written by man, who is not infallible. And even though God told John to write down that which we read in the book of Revelation. The information given in the book of Revelation is only as good as the one who is capable of reading it. And , over the years, the book of Revelation has been tampered with. Even though God said not to add , nor take away from this writting.
The ten commandments are to the best of my knowledge, the only hand written document given by God, written by God with his finger. Moses did not have anything to do with the writting of the ten commandments that were written in stone, by God himself. But we no longer have those two stones do we ? So we rely upon the information we have.
There never seems to be any dispute over the two commandments given, to Love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds and strength. And to love our neighbor as thyself. So why don't we put our emphasis upon these two commandments ? Instead, we put more emphasis upon the traditions of men.
Bless
I know what you mean about some scripture has been changed over time, and it is always interpreted by the reader, but I always had the impression that the original written texts were God breathed. Still, they are up to interpretation.Mysteryman said:
I know what you mean about some scripture has been changed over time, and it is always interpreted by the reader, but I always had the impression that the original written texts were God breathed. Still, they are up to interpretation.[/quote]Mysteryman said:
Hi Nick
Let me show you something. Here in II Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man : but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit". The prophecy came by the spoken Word, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The OT was written many years after the events that took place. The chronicles were written sort of like a history book. The information we have from Genesis onward, was written many years after by those who didn't even live during those times for the most part. Everything is only as good as it was preserved.
The four gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They lived what they wrote and what they heard and saw. Each gospel is limited in scope, because of the differing view from each. For the most part, everything we read is true within the four gospels. However, not any one gospel is a complete record of the events and comments made. Each one is unique in its own way.
What I am trying to convey to you, is that what we consider originals, to some degree, do not exist, even though some of Paul's writtings were handed down to the church(s). The Apostle John more than likely wrote the most. And many of his writtings were considered the most accurate accounts .
Preserving the writtings was very difficult, and many of them became misplaced, and lost. So secondary writtings were at times considered the best one could come to the original history of what was said and what occured at any given time. Luke could also have had a hand in the many writtings of the NT as we know it. Paul wrote some of it, but not as much as we give him credit for.
This is why the spoken Word has been throughout the Word of God, that which God had spoken through His prophets, which were heard, not read. This is why we read - "So then, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".
Jesus sent Apostles, Prophets, Evangilists, pastors, and teachers, not to write the Word , but to speak the Word. Only the book of Revelation was to be written, by John. That is not to say, that the OT records were not to be written. Indeed that is what the chronicles were for. But more importantly, the OT writtings were of the things that had anlready happened (past tense). The book of Revelation is about the future events, as well as the past events. The book of Revelation is a revealing, and should be taught and understood.
However , just like anything else, it depends soley upon how it was preserved.
Bless
Mysteryman said:
Net Bible:
3:14 You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.
If we take a step back to what Paul was saying to Timothy, it could be said, "Timothy, your mother and grandmother have raised you (1.5) with the Holy Tanakh (Gen - Malichi) and these holy writings are inspired by God and are useful for ...
While I know ya'all are discussing the accuracy of the NT which I believe to be inspired, the above scripture is in reference to the OT, which is preserved without dispute. ;)
Regardless, there are many examples in the NWT that just don't line up to the oldest manuscripts out there...
Hervey, this seems to be an example of a contradiction, but perhaps I'm not correct in what I inferred. Earlier (I believe page 3),
I disagreed with this statement when I saw it, but in a more recent post, you seem to have changed your mind...
So, is it "very Possible" to read the Bible without bias, study it again and again, until you arrive at the truth of what it is saying - or - was it never the intent of God for us to do this alone and is not for private interpretation?
Did your belief on private interpretation evolve from page 3 to this last page?
If I inferred something that you seem to have implied, I'm sorry, but it seems a pretty clear contradiction.
Thank you,
Mike
Mysteryman said:
I disagreed with this statement when I saw it, but in a more recent post, you seem to have changed your mind...
Mysteryman said:
So, is it "very Possible" to read the Bible without bias, study it again and again, until you arrive at the truth of what it is saying - or - was it never the intent of God for us to do this alone and is not for private interpretation?
Did your belief on private interpretation evolve from page 3 to this last page?
If I inferred something that you seem to have implied, I'm sorry, but it seems a pretty clear contradiction.
Thank you,
Mike
Hi Mike:
Mike, I can see how you could read into what I said and find somewhat of a contradiction. However, If you and I were with each other in person, and both of us were allowed to ask a question when something is not clear. Any such contradiction would quickly be resolved. Since we talk with one another over a period of time, in typed form, much of what is being said, can easily be lost or misinterpreted.
One can read their bibles without bias, but it takes a special person who is willing and capable. Some people are not ready within their lives, to ask God to open us the eyes of their understanding while they read the scriptures. They might with their lips, but not with their hearts.
One must walk by the Spirit in order for this to occur. You can not do this on your own, and of your own ability. One must be very humble and meek towards the truth. Change is a process by which you as an individual are willing .
I believe I told you this before, that I was raised within a denomination and held to what you sometimes call "core" beliefs. And even though I do not understand this type of language or usage of wording. I accept what you are trying to convey. I changed, because first, I humbled myself, and became meek and willing to accept the truth. The most difficult part was not the accepting of the truth. The most difficult part of accepting the truth, is that I would be seperating myself from the majority of those who claimed to be believing the truth. Knowing full well, in my heart, that I just left the lie, which is darkness, and now walk in the truth , which is light. And I look back and see family and friends and brothers and sisters, still abiding in the darkness. That was the most difficult. Accepting the truth was easy. Seperation, which is automatic, when one accepts truth over error, is the most difficult.
Accepting four crucified with Christ is a piece of cake. ( Meaning easy ) Yet, it can be a roadblock for some. And if one was to think that this was a huge leap, think about those who still water baptize and those who still do communion services.
The Word of God does not contradict itself. It never did and never will. The only thing that becomes contradictory is when man made doctrines come up against the truth of the scriptures.
One who brings a bias into reading scripture, will only try and prove their bias with scripture. And it does not matter how much they need to twist scripture in order to achieve an end result. If that is the way in which one wants to live their lives, then it is totally up to them. They actually do not want the truth, nor desire the truth anyways. When the Word states, that we must carry our own cross. That is what it means, when it comes to seperating truth from error. This is one of the reasons, that the Word of God is bitter and sweet. The truth within the Word of God brings about unity, as well as division. It brings about love , as well as hatred. It brings about peace, as well as fear. It brings about good, as well as evil.
Do we walk with the Lord, and stand by his side. Or do we walk with men, and stand by their sides ?
Mike, I would rather have ten enemies, and only one beloved brethren. Than ten beloved brethren and only one enemy. Are my words confounding you ?
What I mean by that Mike, is that I would rather have one beloved brethren, who loves the Lord God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, than to have ten brethren who say they love me, but their hearts are far from the Lord.
Bless
Mike, I can see how you could read into what I said and find somewhat of a contradiction. However, If you and I were with each other in person, and both of us were allowed to ask a question when something is not clear. Any such contradiction would quickly be resolved. Since we talk with one another over a period of time, in typed form, much of what is being said, can easily be lost or misinterpreted.One can read their bibles without bias, but it takes a special person who is willing and capable. Some people are not ready within their lives, to ask God to open us the eyes of their understanding while they read the scriptures. They might with their lips, but not with their hearts.
One must walk by the Spirit in order for this to occur. You can not do this on your own, and of your own ability. One must be very humble and meek towards the truth. Change is a process by which you as an individual are willing .
I believe I told you this before, that I was raised within a denomination and held to what you sometimes call "core" beliefs. And even though I do not understand this type of language or usage of wording. I accept what you are trying to convey. I changed, because first, I humbled myself, and became meek and willing to accept the truth. The most difficult part was not the accepting of the truth. The most difficult part of accepting the truth, is that I would be seperating myself from the majority of those who claimed to be believing the truth. Knowing full well, in my heart, that I just left the lie, which is darkness, and now walk in the truth , which is light. And I look back and see family and friends and brothers and sisters, still abiding in the darkness. That was the most difficult. Accepting the truth was easy. Seperation, which is automatic, when one accepts truth over error, is the most difficult.
Accepting four crucified with Christ is a piece of cake. ( Meaning easy ) Yet, it can be a roadblock for some. And if one was to think that this was a huge leap, think about those who still water baptize and those who still do communion services.
The Word of God does not contradict itself. It never did and never will. The only thing that becomes contradictory is when man made doctrines come up against the truth of the scriptures.
One who brings a bias into reading scripture, will only try and prove their bias with scripture. And it does not matter how much they need to twist scripture in order to achieve an end result. If that is the way in which one wants to live their lives, then it is totally up to them. They actually do not want the truth, nor desire the truth anyways. When the Word states, that we must carry our own cross. That is what it means, when it comes to seperating truth from error. This is one of the reasons, that the Word of God is bitter and sweet. The truth within the Word of God brings about unity, as well as division. It brings about love , as well as hatred. It brings about peace, as well as fear. It brings about good, as well as evil.
Do we walk with the Lord, and stand by his side. Or do we walk with men, and stand by their sides ?
Mike, I would rather have ten enemies, and only one beloved brethren. Than ten beloved brethren and only one enemy. Are my words confounding you ?
What I mean by that Mike, is that I would rather have one beloved brethren, who loves the Lord God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, than to have ten brethren who say they love me, but their hearts are far from the Lord.
Bless
Water baptism and communion services are still done because our Lord commanded for us to do them. Followers of Christ do what he says.Mysteryman said:
And so it becomes necessary to discern and study to see which doctrines are man made and which line up with Scripture.MM said:
Everyone brings bias into reading Scripture, some right, some wrong.MM said:
Hey MM. I'm sure talking live would be more clear than posting on any forum. I might have taken certain things in the wrong vane, but it's pretty clear that we see things very differently from scripture, and that wouldn't change. If we were to talk live, I've a feeling that our conversation would end with that agreement, since we are both very convicted in our understandings and a discussion ends where discussions like this go on and on.Mysteryman said:Hi Mike:
Case in point where a live conversation would end in disagreement. Free responded as I would, but I would add that bias is something that we all have, even if very subtle and not to the point of distorting the Truth all the time. But that happens for all of us. You say it takes a special person. You would have to hold that a person who disagrees with you on every point isn't special while you are. You believe you have the Truth in you. So do I, but the difference as it applies to this part of our discussion is that I acknowledge that I'm biased and so is everyone else. By saying that you have no bias and have an extraordinary ability to free yourself of all bias really seems like you're putting yourself on a pedestal. While people who are highly sensitive to being led by the Holy Spirit are wrong if they disagree with you, because they're not fully able to be led as you are is arrogant. And I mean "arrogant" in that you set yourself apart. I don't mean to imply that you feel you are better than the next sinner.Mysteryman said:
More arrogance in the same vane that I used the word before. Being humble is not a quality that you share and others don't who disagree with you. You might be humble, but I dare say no more humble than many others who have humbly sought the Truth and come to different conclusions. I would say it is not humble to say that those who disagree with you live in darkness, while you live in light. It sounds as if you feel like you've "arrived", while Christianity is a walk we are taking. Saying all who came before you and those who also are in their walk who disagree with your understand scripture - many of whom surrendered themselves to the Lord - walked or walk in darkness, is to put yourself in a place of honor. And you know what Jesus said about putting yourself in a place of honor...Mysteryman said:
Mysteryman said:
Again, everyone has a bias, even if that only means their life experiences create this bias. And I would say this bias is not always used purposefully to drive an agenda. It can innocently impact how they put certain scriptures out of context. As far as all the conflict you talk about, Luke 12:
49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Jesus was and is God Himself, and people were, are, and will be divided in acknowledging this.
Agreed, and I will stand alone if I have to in accepting that Jesus is (here's that word you don't like ;) ) "Fully" God if I have to. Yes Fully God. Fortunately, I am not alone but have the Christian Church to stand with me!Mysteryman said:
I'll never be able to comprehend how you came to dismiss the message of the Old Testament pointing to Jesus Divinity and that of the New Testament revealing it. 
Be blessed,
Mike
So, if scripture is God breathed (and I take that as a yes) then I don't see how the original texts that were written are not correct.[/quote]Mysteryman said:
Hi Nick
Scripture is -- "inspired" ( II Timothy 3:16) , not God breathed. Prophecy is God breathed.
When this scripture is quoted -- II Peter 1:20 - "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (also read verse 21) - Prophecy is the spoken word. Scripture is the written Word.