Total Posts:206|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Orange Juice & Father Xmas

Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:29:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


The JW's don't. they are busy purifying it,lol. What you also leave out of your calculations is that the God who was powerful enough to inspire it, is also powerful enough to protect the essential meaning of it. He did not need to protect every single word.

Have you noticed yet that Santa is an anagram of Satan, lol.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 6:03:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

Then find the cross in the NWT perversion. I can teach it from the ASV. One can indeed teach pretty much same things from every translation, save one. And that one happens to be the one that will not reveal the scholastic qualifications of its translators. We'd kinda like to know that the person translating Greek into English for us can in fact read Greek.

Rule #1 of translating: be able to read and understand the original language, and be able to back up one's claim to do so.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 6:45:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 6:03:05 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

Then find the cross in the NWT perversion. I can teach it from the ASV. One can indeed teach pretty much same things from every translation, save one. And that one happens to be the one that will not reveal the scholastic qualifications of its translators. We'd kinda like to know that the person translating Greek into English for us can in fact read Greek.

Rule #1 of translating: be able to read and understand the original language, and be able to back up one's claim to do so.

Acxtually there is not one thing that cannot be taught from every translation, but we already know that you won;t accept the evidence of teh scriptures on those subjecuts..

Jesus being created can be demonstrated across all translations.

Jesus having a God can be demonstrated across all translations.

The incorrectness of the teaching of hell-fire and torment can be demonstrated across all translations.

Christ reign lasting 1,000 years before he hands over the kingdom to his father. can be demonstrated from all translations.

Christ taking up his kingdom in 1914 can be demonstrated from all translations,

Those are the most fundamental doctrinal points of all, but there are others.

At least I have not yet found a translation that cannot demonstrate all of those.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 6:47:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 3:12:27 AM, Composer wrote:
Since non of you supposed religionists can legitimately refute that Statement then the Statement remains vindicated!

I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times, you just have no intention of accepting the evidence or it's validity.

Your loss not mine.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 6:59:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 6:45:45 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:03:05 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

Then find the cross in the NWT perversion. I can teach it from the ASV. One can indeed teach pretty much same things from every translation, save one. And that one happens to be the one that will not reveal the scholastic qualifications of its translators. We'd kinda like to know that the person translating Greek into English for us can in fact read Greek.

Rule #1 of translating: be able to read and understand the original language, and be able to back up one's claim to do so.

Acxtually there is not one thing that cannot be taught from every translation, but we already know that you won;t accept the evidence of teh scriptures on those subjecuts..

Jesus being created can be demonstrated across all translations.

Jesus having a God can be demonstrated across all translations.

The incorrectness of the teaching of hell-fire and torment can be demonstrated across all translations.

Christ reign lasting 1,000 years before he hands over the kingdom to his father. can be demonstrated from all translations.

Christ taking up his kingdom in 1914 can be demonstrated from all translations,

Those are the most fundamental doctrinal points of all, but there are others.

At least I have not yet found a translation that cannot demonstrate all of those.

Then take a KJV or ASV and find the "up-right stake" in it instead of the cross.

Remember, you said, "It is possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available." LMAO. No, it's not - and that was just another of your ridiculous statements. You'd have to take an ASV or KJV and re-translate it in order to teach an "up-right stake".

One CANNOT teach exactly the same things from all translations.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:22:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 6:59:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:45:45 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:03:05 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

Then find the cross in the NWT perversion. I can teach it from the ASV. One can indeed teach pretty much same things from every translation, save one. And that one happens to be the one that will not reveal the scholastic qualifications of its translators. We'd kinda like to know that the person translating Greek into English for us can in fact read Greek.

Rule #1 of translating: be able to read and understand the original language, and be able to back up one's claim to do so.

Actually there is not one thing that cannot be taught from every translation, but we already know that you won;t accept the evidence of the scriptures on those subjects..

Jesus being created can be demonstrated across all translations.

Jesus having a God can be demonstrated across all translations.

The incorrectness of the teaching of hell-fire and torment can be demonstrated across all translations.

Christ reign lasting 1,000 years before he hands over the kingdom to his father. can be demonstrated from all translations.

Christ taking up his kingdom in 1914 can be demonstrated from all translations,

Those are the most fundamental doctrinal points of all, but there are others.

At least I have not yet found a translation that cannot demonstrate all of those.

Then take a KJV or ASV and find the "up-right stake" in it instead of the cross.

Remember, you said, "It is possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available." LMAO. No, it's not - and that was just another of your ridiculous statements. You'd have to take an ASV or KJV and re-translate it in order to teach an "up-right stake".

One CANNOT teach exactly the same things from all translations.

Not exactly one of the major points of doctrine, lol, trust you to pick on something which is merely a detail., and one which is still contended over by Greek scholars to this day.

To do that, one would have to go back to the Manuscripts.

The two Greek words used to describe the instrument of Christ's execution, are Stauros, and Xylon.

Stauros means stake, pure and simple, nothing more nothing less.

Xylon means Tree, again nothing less nothing more.

Even the Latin, Crux Simplex, which often translates them means nothing more that a simple stake to hang something on, hence the saying "the crux of the matter".

Therefore the implement scripture is describing is a simple one piece stake.

However you can also include evidence from history, including woodcuts of Roman executions which show a simple stake in use.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In fact the only records I can find of a two piece cross in use, comes from Apostate "Christian" literature which is not exactly biased, and all dated from after Constantine introduced the Cross shape into worship following a supposed vision he had, which even many of those who believe it, think really represented a sword, or the military might with which he often conquered his enemies.

From Wikipedia:

"Although Christians accepted that the cross was the gallows on which Jesus died, they had already begun in the 2nd century to use it as a Christian symbol. During the first three centuries of the Christian era the Cross had been "a symbol of minor importance". Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation retained the cross and crucifix in the Lutheran Church. Luther wrote: "The cross alone is our theology." He believed one knows God not through works but through suffering, the cross, and faith[need quotation to verify].

The Protestant Reformation spurred a revival of iconoclasm, a wave of rejecting sacred images"including the cross"from worship. For example, during the 16th century, Nicholas Ridley, James Calfhill, and Theodore Beza, rejected practices that were described as cross worship. Considering it a form of idolatry, there was a dispute in 16th century England over the baptismal use of the sign of the cross and even the public use of crosses. There were more active reactions to religious items that were thought as 'relics of Papacy', as happened for example in September 1641, when Sir Robert Harley, pulled down and destroyed the cross at Wigmore. Writers during the 19th century indicating a pagan origin of the cross included Henry Dana Ward, Mourant Brock, and John Denham Parsons. David Williams, writing of medieval images of monsters, says: "The disembodied phallus is also formed into a cross, which, before it became for Christianity the symbol of salvation, was a pagan symbol of fertility." The study, Gods, Heroes & Kings: The Battle for Mythic Britain states: "Before the fourth century CE, the cross was not widely embraced as a sign of Christianity, symbolizing as it did the gallows of a criminal.".

And no, whether or not it was a cross, or as scripture says before it is mistranslated as cross, a simple stake, is unimportant in reality, what is important is that Christ died an ignominious death as a falsely accused man, and that his blood was spilled onto the ground in accordance with the Mosaic Law on sacrifices, as the final sacrifice under that Law.

So take you pick. Go with scripture or, as you usually do with doctrine, the actual implement is of comparatively little importance as it was not a part of the prophecy.

Of course it does count towards the "accurate knowledge of God and Christ" that we are supposed to hold as followers of Christ.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:30:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

However, the antichrists and false prophets who had the Bible printed where men who had no idea that former antichrists and false prophets stole the written and spoken words of the saints and prophets and added all their religious ideas from the beast to it.

The new testament is NOT the original works of the saints and is filled with religious dogma that Christians think is the Truth. As long as you believe the Bible is the true Word of God, you will truly be deceived by written words from antichrists and false prophets who never know our invisible Creator.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:34:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 6:47:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:12:27 AM, Composer wrote:
Since non of you supposed religionists can legitimately refute that Statement then the Statement remains vindicated!

I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times, you just have no intention of accepting the evidence or it's validity.

Your loss not mine.

And I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times by using prophecies that our Creator interpreted through written and spoken testimonies in which He put every English word I wrote and spoke directly into my mind. I don't have to study anything in order to speak for our Creator because I know it's all His work that is being accomplished.

Your loss is that you won't listen to Him speak to you. Your religious pride keeps you from His knowledge.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:43:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@madman wrote

Although Christians accepted that the cross was the gallows on which Jesus died, they had already begun in the 2nd century to use it as a Christian symbol.

Constantine wasn't alive then dummy
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 8:48:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:22:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:59:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:45:45 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:03:05 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

Then find the cross in the NWT perversion. I can teach it from the ASV. One can indeed teach pretty much same things from every translation, save one. And that one happens to be the one that will not reveal the scholastic qualifications of its translators. We'd kinda like to know that the person translating Greek into English for us can in fact read Greek.

Rule #1 of translating: be able to read and understand the original language, and be able to back up one's claim to do so.

Actually there is not one thing that cannot be taught from every translation, but we already know that you won;t accept the evidence of the scriptures on those subjects..

Jesus being created can be demonstrated across all translations.

Jesus having a God can be demonstrated across all translations.

The incorrectness of the teaching of hell-fire and torment can be demonstrated across all translations.

Christ reign lasting 1,000 years before he hands over the kingdom to his father. can be demonstrated from all translations.

Christ taking up his kingdom in 1914 can be demonstrated from all translations,

Those are the most fundamental doctrinal points of all, but there are others.

At least I have not yet found a translation that cannot demonstrate all of those.

Then take a KJV or ASV and find the "up-right stake" in it instead of the cross.

Remember, you said, "It is possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available." LMAO. No, it's not - and that was just another of your ridiculous statements. You'd have to take an ASV or KJV and re-translate it in order to teach an "up-right stake".

One CANNOT teach exactly the same things from all translations.

Not exactly one of the major points of doctrine, lol, trust you to pick on something which is merely a detail., and one which is still contended over by Greek scholars to this day.

To do that, one would have to go back to the Manuscripts.

The two Greek words used to describe the instrument of Christ's execution, are Stauros, and Xylon.

Stauros means stake, pure and simple, nothing more nothing less.

Xylon means Tree, again nothing less nothing more.

Even the Latin, Crux Simplex, which often translates them means nothing more that a simple stake to hang something on, hence the saying "the crux of the matter".

Therefore the implement scripture is describing is a simple one piece stake.

However you can also include evidence from history, including woodcuts of Roman executions which show a simple stake in use.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In fact the only records I can find of a two piece cross in use, comes from Apostate "Christian" literature which is not exactly biased, and all dated from after Constantine introduced the Cross shape into worship following a supposed vision he had, which even many of those who believe it, think really represented a sword, or the military might with which he often conquered his enemies.

From Wikipedia:

"Although Christians accepted that the cross was the gallows on which Jesus died, they had already begun in the 2nd century to use it as a Christian symbol. During the first three centuries of the Christian era the Cross had been "a symbol of minor importance". Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation retained the cross and crucifix in the Lutheran Church. Luther wrote: "The cross alone is our theology." He believed one knows God not through works but through suffering, the cross, and faith[need quotation to verify].

The Protestant Reformation spurred a revival of iconoclasm, a wave of rejecting sacred images"including the cross"from worship. For example, during the 16th century, Nicholas Ridley, James Calfhill, and Theodore Beza, rejected practices that were described as cross worship. Considering it a form of idolatry, there was a dispute in 16th century England over the baptismal use of the sign of the cross and even the public use of crosses. The study, Gods, Heroes & Kings: The Battle for Mythic Britain states: "Before the fourth century CE, the cross was not widely embraced as a sign of Christianity, symbolizing as it did the gallows of a criminal.".

And no, whether or not it was a cross, or as scripture says before it is mistranslated as cross, a simple stake, is unimportant in reality, what is important is that Christ died an ignominious death as a falsely accused man, and that his blood was spilled onto the ground in accordance with the Mosaic Law on sacrifices, as the final sacrifice under that Law.

So take you pick. Go with scripture or, as you usually do with doctrine, the actual implement is of comparatively little importance as it was not a part of the prophecy.

Of course it does count towards the "accurate knowledge of God and Christ" that we are supposed to hold as followers of Christ.

I am well aware that one can run to the manuscripts. You weren't talking about that. You were talking about translations. And my whole point is: the translation one chooses is very important. The translation should be gauged on several points, one of which amounts to nothing more than the qualifications of the translators. Can the person even read Greek? Does he have the credentials to teach others? Do others recognize his abilities in a certain subject area? And on and on.

One thing that will not work is for a group to veil everything in secrecy, and thus ensure that no one can evaluate any qualifications.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:31:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:48:30 AM, annanicole wrote:


I am well aware that one can run to the manuscripts. You weren't talking about that. You were talking about translations. And my whole point is: the translation one chooses is very important. The translation should be gauged on several points, one of which amounts to nothing more than the qualifications of the translators. Can the person even read Greek? Does he have the credentials to teach others? Do others recognize his abilities in a certain subject area? And on and on.

I am well aware of that, but no, a translation cannot accurately be judged on the human qualifications of a person, but on how accurately it conforms to the whole ethos of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. There is only one translation which does that, is a completely harmonious whole, which as God's word scripture has to be.

The Apostles certainly believed that, which is why Paul was able to say what he did at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17:

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Shame you have never believed that or you would have spent much more time, not just reading but studying the scriptures Paul is referring to, and that Jesus and all the Apostles taught from, rather than almost completely disregarding them.

All the scholarship n the world won;t compensate or a bias towards Apostate teachings such as you espouse. The only thing that will help is a desire to find truth whether or not it is comfortable. I only know one group who put scripture before Doctrine, and you are most certainly not amongst them.


One thing that will not work is for a group to veil everything in secrecy, and thus ensure that no one can evaluate any qualifications.,

The qualifications are far less important than the end result, as the NWT proves because of it's integrity to the overall message rather than to any human doctrine.

Reliance on humans, whoever well educated in the status quo, is always an error. Only God and Christ can be trusted, that is why I even subject the output of the WTBTS, what of it I read anyway, to a thorough scriptural examination.

However, I read far less of it than you like to assume, since scripture is my only real support. If I use their publications at all it is for convenience since they gather all the scriptures, or many of them, into one place more often than not.

That is why most of my quotations from their publications come from the book "Reasoning from the scriptures" the name of which is based on Acts 17:2, 3:

2 So according to Paul"s custom he went inside to them, and for three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, saying: "This is the Christ, this Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you."

It not only give the NWT version on many subjects, but also the equivalents from many others.

http://wol.jw.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:32:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:43:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
@madman wrote

Although Christians accepted that the cross was the gallows on which Jesus died, they had already begun in the 2nd century to use it as a Christian symbol.


Constantine wasn't alive then dummy

No you are quite correct I meant to go back and correct that error but forgot, thank you for pointing it out.

However that was Constantine's claim for his vision.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:33:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:34:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:47:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:12:27 AM, Composer wrote:
Since non of you supposed religionists can legitimately refute that Statement then the Statement remains vindicated!

I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times, you just have no intention of accepting the evidence or it's validity.

Your loss not mine.

And I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times by using prophecies that our Creator interpreted through written and spoken testimonies in which He put every English word I wrote and spoke directly into my mind. I don't have to study anything in order to speak for our Creator because I know it's all His work that is being accomplished.

Your loss is that you won't listen to Him speak to you. Your religious pride keeps you from His knowledge.

You cannot refute the truth with lies, though you can happily try.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:36:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 8:30:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

However, the antichrists and false prophets who had the Bible printed where men who had no idea that former antichrists and false prophets stole the written and spoken words of the saints and prophets and added all their religious ideas from the beast to it.

The new testament is NOT the original works of the saints and is filled with religious dogma that Christians think is the Truth. As long as you believe the Bible is the true Word of God, you will truly be deceived by written words from antichrists and false prophets who never know our invisible Creator.

Those who had the bible printed, and who trued so hard to corrupt it certainly were Anti_Christ's, however God has protected his word to the extent that the essence of it, the core of it is true.

Every word of that centre of scripture precludes everything that you teach from being truth.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:46:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


I literally just poured myself a glass of orange juice and then saw this.... xD
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 9:54:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am well aware that one can run to the manuscripts. You weren't talking about that. Anna: You were talking about translations. And my whole point is: the translation one chooses is very important. The translation should be gauged on several points, one of which amounts to nothing more than the qualifications of the translators. Can the person even read Greek? Does he have the credentials to teach others? Do others recognize his abilities in a certain subject area? And on and on.

MCB: I am well aware of that, but no, a translation cannot accurately be judged on the human qualifications of a person, but on how accurately it conforms to the whole ethos of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. There is only one translation which does that, is a completely harmonious whole, which as God's word scripture has to be.


Anna: No, that won't work at all because people have radically different concepts of the "whole ethos of scripture". If your rule held true, people would choose their preferred translation based upon what they already thought the Bible said, i. e. what is the "whole ethos of scripture"? - and let me find a translation that conforms to it. Won't work.

MCB: "The Apostles certainly believed that, which is why Paul was able to say what he did at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17"

Anna: The apostles never condoned such a thing as you are proposing. The people who translated the Septuagent were highly skilled in their field - and people knew it. Since the Septuagent was the usual translation used by Jesus and His apostles, I presume that they are condoning the idea of qualified, trained people performing the translation.

MCB: "Shame you have never believed that or you would have spent much more time, not just reading but studying the scriptures Paul is referring to, and that Jesus and all the Apostles taught from, rather than almost completely disregarding them."

Anna: Nope, shame on YOU for feebly attempting to advance the idea that functionally illiterate people, incompetent to the task before them, should be utilized solely on the grounds that their view of scripture conforms with yours. You didn't SAY it, but you are certainly implying it.

MCB: "All the scholarship n the world won;t compensate or a bias towards Apostate teachings such as you espouse. "

Anna: There's our boy! Atta boy. Tell us! What you are saying is this:

"Regarding a delicate task such as Greek text criticism and translation, I would prefer a functionally illiterate Jehovah's Witness than a dozen PhD scholars who teach at universities."

That's a pretty good one! And it's the truth. By dingies, you want a translation that teaches Jehovah's Witness doctrines, even if certain passages must be altered in order to do it. Why? It's justified because by definition Jehovah's Witness doctrine is right. Why? Because it is right! What about that passages, those many passages, that do not teach it? They must be altered to teach it so as not to confuse people! LMAO. Dig that hole, MadCornish.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:08:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
MadCornish on his overall view of the American Standard, the product of one hundred and one college-trained, well-educated, universally recognized scholars who were held in enough esteem to teach Greek at our leading universities:

"qualifications are far less important"
"Only God and Christ can be trusted"
"a translation cannot accurately be judged on the human qualifications of a person"
'bias towards Apostate teachings"

Now let's hear him on the abilities of sectarians who happen to agree with him, but who possibly have no training whatsoever in Greek and possibly cannot even read the language:

"accurately it conforms to the whole ethos of scripture"
"completely harmonious whole"
"a desire to find truth whether or not it is comfortable"
" integrity to the overall message"

Rightttttttttttttt, MadCornish. Give us a translation put out by possibly a half-a-dozen ignoramuses who could not even read Greek, but hold in contempt the versions put out by a hundred Greek scholars - men who could read Greek as well as English. That makes a lot of sense.

Yep, decide first what you believe the overall teaching of scripture is on a given subject, then twist all verses that oppose your ideas. Nice one!
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:43:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 9:33:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:34:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:47:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:12:27 AM, Composer wrote:
Since non of you supposed religionists can legitimately refute that Statement then the Statement remains vindicated!

I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times, you just have no intention of accepting the evidence or it's validity.

Your loss not mine.

And I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times by using prophecies that our Creator interpreted through written and spoken testimonies in which He put every English word I wrote and spoke directly into my mind. I don't have to study anything in order to speak for our Creator because I know it's all His work that is being accomplished.

Your loss is that you won't listen to Him speak to you. Your religious pride keeps you from His knowledge.

You cannot refute the truth with lies, though you can happily try.

Your truth or the invisible Truth that I speak for?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 10:46:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 9:36:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:30:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

However, the antichrists and false prophets who had the Bible printed where men who had no idea that former antichrists and false prophets stole the written and spoken words of the saints and prophets and added all their religious ideas from the beast to it.

The new testament is NOT the original works of the saints and is filled with religious dogma that Christians think is the Truth. As long as you believe the Bible is the true Word of God, you will truly be deceived by written words from antichrists and false prophets who never know our invisible Creator.

Those who had the bible printed, and who trued so hard to corrupt it certainly were Anti_Christ's, however God has protected his word to the extent that the essence of it, the core of it is true.

Every word of that centre of scripture precludes everything that you teach from being truth.

It's amazing how God has you twist everything to protect your pride, which is fear. Fear doesn't come from knowing our true Creator and who we are within His mind. Fear exists because His people don't know who He is or how we were created.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 11:40:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 10:46:47 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:36:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:30:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 5:35:27 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2014 4:36:23 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian & J.w Story book jebus!

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven (j.ws), then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & J.ws both swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas & their respective ideologies both end up as did the Titanic = SUNK!


One more point.

Does anyone else find it interesting that despite all that man has done to scripture, it is still possible to teach exactly the same things from every single translation available. Thus the bible remains an integrated whole from Genesis to Revelation.

Another sign of God's protection on it.

However, the antichrists and false prophets who had the Bible printed where men who had no idea that former antichrists and false prophets stole the written and spoken words of the saints and prophets and added all their religious ideas from the beast to it.

The new testament is NOT the original works of the saints and is filled with religious dogma that Christians think is the Truth. As long as you believe the Bible is the true Word of God, you will truly be deceived by written words from antichrists and false prophets who never know our invisible Creator.

Those who had the bible printed, and who trued so hard to corrupt it certainly were Anti_Christ's, however God has protected his word to the extent that the essence of it, the core of it is true.

Every word of that centre of scripture precludes everything that you teach from being truth.

It's amazing how God has you twist everything to protect your pride, which is fear. Fear doesn't come from knowing our true Creator and who we are within His mind. Fear exists because His people don't know who He is or how we were created.

I have neither pride nor fear, neither does God twist anything or tolerate anything being twisted.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 11:42:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 10:43:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:33:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:34:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:47:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:12:27 AM, Composer wrote:
Since non of you supposed religionists can legitimately refute that Statement then the Statement remains vindicated!

I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times, you just have no intention of accepting the evidence or it's validity.

Your loss not mine.

And I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times by using prophecies that our Creator interpreted through written and spoken testimonies in which He put every English word I wrote and spoke directly into my mind. I don't have to study anything in order to speak for our Creator because I know it's all His work that is being accomplished.

Your loss is that you won't listen to Him speak to you. Your religious pride keeps you from His knowledge.

You cannot refute the truth with lies, though you can happily try.

Your truth or the invisible Truth that I speak for?

There is only one truth, and it is in scripture not in your fantasies or delusions.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 12:04:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 10:08:31 AM, annanicole wrote:
MadCornish on his overall view of the American Standard, the product of one hundred and one college-trained, well-educated, universally recognized scholars who were held in enough esteem to teach Greek at our leading universities:

"qualifications are far less important"
"Only God and Christ can be trusted"
"a translation cannot accurately be judged on the human qualifications of a person"
'bias towards Apostate teachings"

Now let's hear him on the abilities of sectarians who happen to agree with him, but who possibly have no training whatsoever in Greek and possibly cannot even read the language:

"accurately it conforms to the whole ethos of scripture"
"completely harmonious whole"
"a desire to find truth whether or not it is comfortable"
" integrity to the overall message"

Rightttttttttttttt, MadCornish. Give us a translation put out by possibly a half-a-dozen ignoramuses who could not even read Greek, but hold in contempt the versions put out by a hundred Greek scholars - men who could read Greek as well as English. That makes a lot of sense.

Yep, decide first what you believe the overall teaching of scripture is on a given subject, then twist all verses that oppose your ideas. Nice one!

In a way that is the ASV's problem. It is the product of people with fixed ideas, who are highly unlikely to be open to God's spirit because of their fixed ideas. Why would they, they have swallowed Satan's lies every bit as fully as yu have. You cannot expect them to translate against their beliefs, hence their translations are every bit as suspect as their beliefs are false.

Like all translators apart from the JWs they have worked out a translation which fits their beliefs and stopped there. How often do they revise it> Are they still worming on revisions? or are they much more likely sitting on the doctrine dictated laurels and sticking with what they have?They have been taught every bit as as you have, so why should they translate their version any other way?

The few who have been courageous enough to translate their versions against what they wished to believe are decried by you and others for their courage. However what ever you say about their translations, they still fit the overall pattern of scripture far better than you preferred versions, or perversions, do, and that is what really matters.

That is where the JWs are different. They are never satisfied that they have it as accurate as they want it, and they do not change it to ft doctrine. They always have, and always will change their beliefs according to what they find in scripture, and not, as you and others do, change scripture to fit their beliefs. And what is more you know that is true because you have often criticised them for doing just that,

After all the JWs used to use the cross as an emblem until they realised, from scripture manuscripts, that there is no way you can twist stauros to mean anything other than the simple upright pole it does mean. The nearest thing to a cross piece was the sign nailed above his head (and yes above his hands also). That is why they topped using it in the mid 1930s.

However the best thing that realisation did for them was that it removed the last vestige of idolatry from their worship, because the veneration of the cross, as you and others do, is idolatry. You use an image in worship, they do not, scripture condemns images in worship as the case of the "Golden Calf" which the Israelites wanted as a symbol of their God, shows.

They simply wanted something they could see and touch as a symbol, they should have needed nephrite.

Actually in your criticism of the JWs you remind me very much of Korah, who criticised Moses, because he was more concerned, as you are, with the human end of things, and not sufficiently concerned with the spiritual, which of course means not being sufficiently concerned with God since God is a spirit.

Ironically, just like you, neither Korah, Dathan nor Abiram liked God's choice. Just like them you think you know better.

If we have truth we need nothing else. If we have a relationship with God and Christ we do not need pictures of them for worship, though for teaching an illustration verbal or pictorial sometimes helps.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 12:06:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 6:03:05 AM, annanicole wrote:


Rule #1 of translating: be able to read and understand the original language, and be able to back up one's claim to do so.

No, rule #1 is being able to understand the overall message of scripture. Without that the best linguistic skill there are will not get you anywhere.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 12:20:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 10:08:31 AM, annanicole wrote:
MadCornish on his overall view of the American Standard, the product of one hundred and one college-trained, well-educated, universally recognized scholars who were held in enough esteem to teach Greek at our leading universities:

"qualifications are far less important"
"Only God and Christ can be trusted"
"a translation cannot accurately be judged on the human qualifications of a person"
'bias towards Apostate teachings"

Now let's hear him on the abilities of sectarians who happen to agree with him, but who possibly have no training whatsoever in Greek and possibly cannot even read the language:

"accurately it conforms to the whole ethos of scripture"
"completely harmonious whole"
"a desire to find truth whether or not it is comfortable"
" integrity to the overall message"

Rightttttttttttttt, MadCornish. Give us a translation put out by possibly a half-a-dozen ignoramuses who could not even read Greek, but hold in contempt the versions put out by a hundred Greek scholars - men who could read Greek as well as English. That makes a lot of sense.

Yep, decide first what you believe the overall teaching of scripture is on a given subject, then twist all verses that oppose your ideas. Nice one!

Yes, you cannot understand scripture any other way.

Do you not think the overall picture of scripture is important?

If you have a 10,000 piece or harder jigsaw puzzle, how do you decide where the pieces go? Can you actually do it without the "overall picture" to guide you.

Scripture is the same. If you do not translate to fit in with the overall picture you get contradictions which being God's word scripture cannot possibly have.

If you have two scriptures which appear to give opposite teachings, how do you decide which is right, unless by going back to other scriptures on the same theme and see which way they go?

Can you honestly allow the word of a God who insists on unity of teaching not have have unifying teachings in his own word?

You seem to think you can, hence you are happy with teachings like consciousness after death, the triune nature of God, the Sentience of Holy Spirit, The physical resurrection of Christ. All of which raise contradictions in scripture.

So when you come up against contradictions what do you do?

We all know that in your case you deny any scripture which contradicts your doctrine and you cannot twist to include it.

However what you should do is change your doctrine to fit what you find.

Scriptural truth is worth dying to defend, doctrine is not, though too many have done, and will do again.

I cannot think of one such translation, and I doubt there is such a beast, however if that were what God wanted, that would be what he got, and it would still be more accurate than any other.

After all, as Paul points out he does not choose many wise people such as yourself as servants.

Why?

Because like the translators you respect, they are too bound by human rules and doctrines to be usable, and in all likelyhood too proud of their achievements to forsake them.

He certainly can't use those who are more interested in doctrine than truth.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 12:38:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 11:42:11 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 10:43:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 9:33:43 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 8:34:48 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 6:47:24 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 3:12:27 AM, Composer wrote:
Since non of you supposed religionists can legitimately refute that Statement then the Statement remains vindicated!

I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times, you just have no intention of accepting the evidence or it's validity.

Your loss not mine.

And I have refuted all your ridiculous statements many times by using prophecies that our Creator interpreted through written and spoken testimonies in which He put every English word I wrote and spoke directly into my mind. I don't have to study anything in order to speak for our Creator because I know it's all His work that is being accomplished.

Your loss is that you won't listen to Him speak to you. Your religious pride keeps you from His knowledge.

You cannot refute the truth with lies, though you can happily try.

Your truth or the invisible Truth that I speak for?

There is only one truth, and it is in scripture not in your fantasies or delusions.

There is no Truth in scripture. The Truth is our Creator who is invisible to man and His thoughts which are also invisible to man. The scriptures were written by God's prophets and saints who knew the Truth and as witnesses to the Truth, they testified in writing and speaking, which is known as the Gospel.

If you believe the Truth are the scriptures, then you've been greatly deceived like all Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God.

2 Peter 1
20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21: because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

What Peter was trying to say in these statements was that scripture ( prophecy ) was written by men who received the Word in their mind and wrote them down for Him. The scriptures themselves are not our Creator but the Word of God is His Voice where all scripture ( prophecies ) came from.

Your pride won't allow you to know the Truth like us saints know Him and speak the Word He puts in our mind to write and preach the gospel with.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 12:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 12:20:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 10:08:31 AM, annanicole wrote:
MadCornish on his overall view of the American Standard, the product of one hundred and one college-trained, well-educated, universally recognized scholars who were held in enough esteem to teach Greek at our leading universities:

"qualifications are far less important"
"Only God and Christ can be trusted"
"a translation cannot accurately be judged on the human qualifications of a person"
'bias towards Apostate teachings"

Now let's hear him on the abilities of sectarians who happen to agree with him, but who possibly have no training whatsoever in Greek and possibly cannot even read the language:

"accurately it conforms to the whole ethos of scripture"
"completely harmonious whole"
"a desire to find truth whether or not it is comfortable"
" integrity to the overall message"

Rightttttttttttttt, MadCornish. Give us a translation put out by possibly a half-a-dozen ignoramuses who could not even read Greek, but hold in contempt the versions put out by a hundred Greek scholars - men who could read Greek as well as English. That makes a lot of sense.

Yep, decide first what you believe the overall teaching of scripture is on a given subject, then twist all verses that oppose your ideas. Nice one!

Yes, you cannot understand scripture any other way.

Do you not think the overall picture of scripture is important?

If you have a 10,000 piece or harder jigsaw puzzle, how do you decide where the pieces go? Can you actually do it without the "overall picture" to guide you.

Scripture is the same. If you do not translate to fit in with the overall picture you get contradictions which being God's word scripture cannot possibly have.

If you have two scriptures which appear to give opposite teachings, how do you decide which is right, unless by going back to other scriptures on the same theme and see which way they go?

Can you honestly allow the word of a God who insists on unity of teaching not have have unifying teachings in his own word?

You seem to think you can, hence you are happy with teachings like consciousness after death, the triune nature of God, the Sentience of Holy Spirit, The physical resurrection of Christ. All of which raise contradictions in scripture.

So when you come up against contradictions what do you do?

We all know that in your case you deny any scripture which contradicts your doctrine and you cannot twist to include it.

However what you should do is change your doctrine to fit what you find.

Scriptural truth is worth dying to defend, doctrine is not, though too many have done, and will do again.

I cannot think of one such translation, and I doubt there is such a beast, however if that were what God wanted, that would be what he got, and it would still be more accurate than any other.

After all, as Paul points out he does not choose many wise people such as yourself as servants.

Why?

Because like the translators you respect, they are too bound by human rules and doctrines to be usable, and in all likelyhood too proud of their achievements to forsake them.

He certainly can't use those who are more interested in doctrine than truth.

You don't have the knowledge of God to know the past, present and future to be able to interpret the prophecies with. You're only using your imagination that you're one of God's saints who speak for Him because of what you read about in the Bible.

Here are a few analogies of you believing you are a saint by reading the Bible;

Does a person who reads Superman comic books believe he is Superman?

Does a person who reads a President's biography become a President?

Can you become a great gardener by reading a book by a great gardener?

By reading the new testament that was written by antichrists and false prophets who added many religious ideas to some of the writings they stole from saints, you are believing you are an antichrist and false prophet besides a saint. I know for sure you aren't a saint so that leaves you believing the words written by antichrists and false prophets, who I know have never known our true invisible Creator.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 1:17:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/1/2014 12:46:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/1/2014 12:20:39 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2014 10:08:31 AM, annanicole wrote:
MadCornish on his overall view of the American Standard, the product of one hundred and one college-trained, well-educated, universally recognized scholars who were held in enough esteem to teach Greek at our leading universities:

"qualifications are far less important"
"Only God and Christ can be trusted"
"a translation cannot accurately be judged on the human qualifications of a person"
'bias towards Apostate teachings"

Now let's hear him on the abilities of sectarians who happen to agree with him, but who possibly have no training whatsoever in Greek and possibly cannot even read the language:

"accurately it conforms to the whole ethos of scripture"
"completely harmonious whole"
"a desire to find truth whether or not it is comfortable"
" integrity to the overall message"

Rightttttttttttttt, MadCornish. Give us a translation put out by possibly a half-a-dozen ignoramuses who could not even read Greek, but hold in contempt the versions put out by a hundred Greek scholars - men who could read Greek as well as English. That makes a lot of sense.

Yep, decide first what you believe the overall teaching of scripture is on a given subject, then twist all verses that oppose your ideas. Nice one!

Yes, you cannot understand scripture any other way.

Do you not think the overall picture of scripture is important?

If you have a 10,000 piece or harder jigsaw puzzle, how do you decide where the pieces go? Can you actually do it without the "overall picture" to guide you.

Scripture is the same. If you do not translate to fit in with the overall picture you get contradictions which being God's word scripture cannot possibly have.

If you have two scriptures which appear to give opposite teachings, how do you decide which is right, unless by going back to other scriptures on the same theme and see which way they go?

Can you honestly allow the word of a God who insists on unity of teaching not have have unifying teachings in his own word?

You seem to think you can, hence you are happy with teachings like consciousness after death, the triune nature of God, the Sentience of Holy Spirit, The physical resurrection of Christ. All of which raise contradictions in scripture.

So when you come up against contradictions what do you do?

We all know that in your case you deny any scripture which contradicts your doctrine and you cannot twist to include it.

However what you should do is change your doctrine to fit what you find.

Scriptural truth is worth dying to defend, doctrine is not, though too many have done, and will do again.

I cannot think of one such translation, and I doubt there is such a beast, however if that were what God wanted, that would be what he got, and it would still be more accurate than any other.

After all, as Paul points out he does not choose many wise people such as yourself as servants.

Why?

Because like the translators you respect, they are too bound by human rules and doctrines to be usable, and in all likelyhood too proud of their achievements to forsake them.

He certainly can't use those who are more interested in doctrine than truth.

You don't have the knowledge of God to know the past, present and future to be able to interpret the prophecies with. You're only using your imagination that you're one of God's saints who speak for Him because of what you read about in the Bible.

Here are a few analogies of you believing you are a saint by reading the Bible;

Does a person who reads Superman comic books believe he is Superman?

Does a person who reads a President's biography become a President?

Can you become a great gardener by reading a book by a great gardener?

By reading the new testament that was written by antichrists and false prophets who added many religious ideas to some of the writings they stole from saints, you are believing you are an antichrist and false prophet besides a saint. I know for sure you aren't a saint so that leaves you believing the words written by antichrists and false prophets, who I know have never known our true invisible Creator.

Except that I don't believe that I am a saint, nor claim to be, but I do have a fairly deep knowledge of God and his son, for which I thank them.