Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Interpretation of the Bible

fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 9:39:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevent the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

Scripture interprets itself if viewed as the harmonious set of writings that it is.

The Devil invented himself, he is no invention of man. He is very real and is causing a great deal of mischief.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:31:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 9:39:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevent the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

Scripture interprets itself if viewed as the harmonious set of writings that it is.

The Devil invented himself, he is no invention of man. He is very real and is causing a great deal of mischief.

If you mean the JW cult is an invention of the devil, then you could be right, LOL!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:39:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

More garbage from MCB without any evidence to back up his assertions!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:46:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

How many slaves do you feel as though you should own?

What do you think the going price is for a Syrian refugee, should "house servant" be the desired occupation to press him/her into?

Don't say humanity has out grown it, don't say God doesn't tolerate slavery, we both know that is a crock, but if you were interested in trying make an escape hatch, you could explain why a God who never changes doesn't want you to have slaves, but did make allowances for it, and even occasionally demanded it, in the past. But doesn't now.

that is a "change" to put it mildly,
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:54:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Many churches have adjusted their beliefs to to fit the modern age in which we live. The Catholic church is among them ; the Pope has spoken about the big ba ng very favourably.To retain numbers they must change for greater numbers of people are aware of modern thought and tacitly accept it. Muslims uncover their faces , christians accepr same sex relationships , in some cases marriage.
To my mind the worst error of the Catholic church is its dogmatic insistence on no birth control ; fortunately many sensible Catholics ignore this senseless rule.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:58:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:31:56 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:39:58 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevent the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

Scripture interprets itself if viewed as the harmonious set of writings that it is.

The Devil invented himself, he is no invention of man. He is very real and is causing a great deal of mischief.

If you mean the JW cult is an invention of the devil, then you could be right, LOL!

You know that's not true.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 10:59:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:39:39 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

More garbage from MCB without any evidence to back up his assertions!

You've seen the evidence, you just refuse to accept it is all.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 11:06:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:46:40 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

How many slaves do you feel as though you should own?


What do you think the going price is for a Syrian refugee, should "house servant" be the desired occupation to press him/her into?

Don't say humanity has out grown it, don't say God doesn't tolerate slavery, we both know that is a crock, but if you were interested in trying make an escape hatch, you could explain why a God who never changes doesn't want you to have slaves, but did make allowances for it, and even occasionally demanded it, in the past. But doesn't now.

that is a "change" to put it mildly,

It is not God who has changed to bring that about, it is the situation they were living in.

At the time it was simply a matter of keeping such ones alive, and that was why they sold themselves into slavery rather than dying and letting their families die.

Recognising the need for it, Jehovah chose to regulate it so that it would be fair on all, including the slaves.

He would never have condoned slavery as it was practised in the 18th century, or as it is practised now.

Starvation is a nasty and painful death. Jehovah's provisions made sure that did not happen to any who were willing to become slaves in exchange for their upkeep.

As with so many who criticise as you do, you fail to understand thins fully. That is your error, not Jehovah's.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 11:32:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:54:46 AM, fromantle wrote:
Many churches have adjusted their beliefs to to fit the modern age in which we live. The Catholic church is among them ; the Pope has spoken about the big ba ng very favourably.To retain numbers they must change for greater numbers of people are aware of modern thought and tacitly accept it. Muslims uncover their faces , christians accepr same sex relationships , in some cases marriage.
To my mind the worst error of the Catholic church is its dogmatic insistence on no birth control ; fortunately many sensible Catholics ignore this senseless rule.

Yes, and by doing so they have moved even further away from God than they ever were, and that was more than far enough.

Followers of Christ are here to pull people closer to God, not go further away with them.

It is Jehovah and his son we need to please, not men.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 11:44:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

How many slaves do you feel as though you should own?


What do you think the going price is for a Syrian refugee, should "house servant" be the desired occupation to press him/her into?

Don't say humanity has out grown it, don't say God doesn't tolerate slavery, we both know that is a crock, but if you were interested in trying make an escape hatch, you could explain why a God who never changes doesn't want you to have slaves, but did make allowances for it, and even occasionally demanded it, in the past. But doesn't now.

that is a "change" to put it mildly,

It is not God who has changed to bring that about, it is the situation they were living in.

A situation for which he made rules, allowances and on occasion, demands. While we might now find the practice abhorrent, God, on the other hand, doesn't: he made rules, allowances and on occasions, demands for it.

At the time it was simply a matter of keeping such ones alive, and that was why they sold themselves into slavery rather than dying and letting their families die.

My what rose colored glasses you view some interpretations through. And as for the conquered peoples, or others that were not "indentured servants", it was just tough luck.

Recognising the need for it, Jehovah chose to regulate it so that it would be fair on all, including the slaves.

.... um... what? No, seriously, what? What do you think killing all the men and male children of a conquered people meant, along with keeping alive those women that have never "known" a man? Do you think those females will be regarded even remotely better than "property"?

He would never have condoned slavery as it was practised in the 18th century, or as it is practised now.

Speculation through interpretation, the likes of which you are declaring special knowledge. Given God's apparent sentiment on slavery in the Bible, I disagree with your conclusion.

Starvation is a nasty and painful death. Jehovah's provisions made sure that did not happen to any who were willing to become slaves in exchange for their upkeep.

... again, this is selective and bears no relevance to those that were not voluntarily engaged in the practice.

As with so many who criticise as you do, you fail to understand thins fully. That is your error, not Jehovah's.

Or your rose colored glasses. Take them off for just a few.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

Many religious Christians worship their own idealization of religious authority as their God. And as part of that dynamic, they need their 'divine authority' to tell them what to believe and how to behave. So they need a 'guidebook from God'. They don't care that the Bible was never written nor intended to be that sort of 'guidebook'. And that it was written and intended to be used to instigate contemplation, conversation, and even heated debate about man's limited understanding of and relationship to God. In many way, if the bible was intended to be a "how to" book, it was intended to ask that question rather than to answer it.

But human beings are social animals that naturally fall into hierarchies and adhere to 'pecking orders' and there are always going to be those who want to be told what to think and do, and those who want to tell them what to think and do. And so for these people "God" is "authority". And authority requires rules, not questions. In fact, authority abhors questions. So for the authority seekers among us, the Bible becomes their book of absolutes. A book of dogmas and rules to be believed and obeyed without question, both for the rulers and the ruled. Because that's what they believe life if all about: blind obedience and loyalty.

It's nothing short of false idolization: treating a man-made religious book as though it were the voice of God Himself. But the Bible idolizers will not be swayed by logic, or reason, or anything else. Because for them, the need for that authoritarian regime overrides logic and reason and even their own autonomy. I view it as a kind of sickness. Just another of many kinds of mental illnesses that we humans are pray to because of our incredibly powerful gift of imagination. It is both our gift and our curse, I suppose.
deetoodee
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 12:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:54:46 AM, fromantle wrote:
Many churches have adjusted their beliefs to to fit the modern age in which we live. The Catholic church is among them ; the Pope has spoken about the big ba ng very favourably.To retain numbers they must change for greater numbers of people are aware of modern thought and tacitly accept it. Muslims uncover their faces , christians accepr same sex relationships , in some cases marriage.
To my mind the worst error of the Catholic church is its dogmatic insistence on no birth control ; fortunately many sensible Catholics ignore this senseless rule.

The Big Bang talk began a long time ago; https://en.wikipedia.org...

In his 1225 treatise De Luce (On Light), English theologian Robert Grosseteste explored the nature of matter and the cosmos. He described the birth of the universe in an explosion and the crystallization of matter to form stars and planets in a set of nested spheres around Earth. De Luce is the first attempt to describe the heavens and Earth using a single set of physical laws.[3]
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think the term blind obediance is not generally applicable.
Often it is very difficult to see much difference between those who accept the label Christian and others. Most Christians and Muslims are az worldly- wise as the rest of us and lead very similar lives. They struggle for status , money , property , look after their families rather than strangers. Religion is more often than not a thin veneer covering normal human asperations. I go further labels are often mistaken for character they are suitable hiding places in which basic humanity is often discovered.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 1:53:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

So, should I assume you believe it's still forbidden to eat shellfish?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 2:36:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 11:44:32 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

How many slaves do you feel as though you should own?


What do you think the going price is for a Syrian refugee, should "house servant" be the desired occupation to press him/her into?

Don't say humanity has out grown it, don't say God doesn't tolerate slavery, we both know that is a crock, but if you were interested in trying make an escape hatch, you could explain why a God who never changes doesn't want you to have slaves, but did make allowances for it, and even occasionally demanded it, in the past. But doesn't now.

that is a "change" to put it mildly,

It is not God who has changed to bring that about, it is the situation they were living in.

A situation for which he made rules, allowances and on occasion, demands. While we might now find the practice abhorrent, God, on the other hand, doesn't: he made rules, allowances and on occasions, demands for it.

Yes, God made allowances for it because it was preferable to just letting people die of starvation, a very nasty death.

People still sell themselves into a similar form of slavery today, and it is perfectly acceptable to society. My fianc"e herself was"employed" in that way as a Maid in the Lebanon.

Like any slave she was still at the beck and call of her mistress or master, or indeed all of that family, 24/7/365, though she did have a "get out clause" once a year when her contract ran out. She was allowed days off, at her mistresses discretion, which she usually spent with Maids to other families who she know well.

In fact the biblical idea of slavery was very similar to the idea of "being in service" between the wars.

What you fail to understand is that slavery is a word which has been made dirty by the slave trade, but in reality appears in many other forms, most of which are very acceptable today in society.

Careful, it is a long way done from such a high horse.


At the time it was simply a matter of keeping such ones alive, and that was why they sold themselves into slavery rather than dying and letting their families die.

My what rose colored glasses you view some interpretations through. And as for the conquered peoples, or others that were not "indentured servants", it was just tough luck.

No, my glasses are completely clear, unlike the thick black lenses you view it all through.

You only see the bad in the situation. I see both sides.


Recognising the need for it, Jehovah chose to regulate it so that it would be fair on all, including the slaves.

.... um... what? No, seriously, what? What do you think killing all the men and male children of a conquered people meant, along with keeping alive those women that have never "known" a man? Do you think those females will be regarded even remotely better than "property"?

A wife has always been regarded as the property of her husband, throughout history, even in very recent times a woman ceased to exist under her maiden name and was given not only her husbands surname, but his forenames also. Hence an Emma Sturgeon, who married a James William Peters would become Mrs James William Peters in law if not in reality.

I have no idea when, or even if, that situation has been changed legally.

He would never have condoned slavery as it was practised in the 18th century, or as it is practised now.

Speculation through interpretation, the likes of which you are declaring special knowledge. Given God's apparent sentiment on slavery in the Bible, I disagree with your conclusion.

You may do, and that is your prerogative. However it does not make me wrong, of itself.

The knowledge I am given is not so special that no-one else can have it. Jehovah would love everyone to rely on him enough for such guidance. (James 1:5-8). He would be more than happy to provide it to any that are willing to take up the challenge.

After all, every one who does is a "bloody nose" to Satan, his arch-enemy, so it is to his benefit if we do.


Starvation is a nasty and painful death. Jehovah's provisions made sure that did not happen to any who were willing to become slaves in exchange for their upkeep.

... again, this is selective and bears no relevance to those that were not voluntarily engaged in the practice.

Of course it does. Don't think they didn't have a choice. They could have refused and been left to die of starvation.

Death is always the other option with Jehovah. Just because that isn't expressed every time in scripture doesn't mean it isn't there, it is a given that it is always there because it is how Jehovah works.

You speak only in ignorance that could be so easily removed.


As with so many who criticise as you do, you fail to understand thins fully. That is your error, not Jehovah's.

Or your rose colored glasses. Take them off for just a few.

I don;t wear rose coloured glasses. I see both sides of every argument before I decide on it. Always have, always will, nothing about scripture has given me any reason to do anything other than continue in that vein.

I would suggest that you stop being solely negative and consider the positive side of things as well, but currently you are blinded to it by those dark glasses you have permanently attached.

And note I do say as well. Like me, you have to look at all sides of an issue to get to the truth.

I stand for the positive side, because I have already studied both sides and have made my decision.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 2:42:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 1:53:25 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

So, should I assume you believe it's still forbidden to eat shellfish?

No, you should not. That was a part of the Mosaic Law which has served it's purpose. You can eat what you like as long as it is as well bled as you can make it, with today's storage methods and sewerage they are much less likely to be as harmful as they were back then.

God's concern for our well-being only changes when the need for such concern does. It is always there, and is behind every law he has ever made.

Now we are under principle, not law, we are much freer, provided we don't abuse that freedom.

Personally I don't like shell fish. I agree entirely with one person's opinion of them when he described eating oysters like "Eating snot out of a tortoise shell". A very accurate description of all shellfish as far as I am concerned.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 2:46:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 1:46:59 PM, fromantle wrote:
I think the term blind obediance is not generally applicable.
Often it is very difficult to see much difference between those who accept the label Christian and others. Most Christians and Muslims are az worldly- wise as the rest of us and lead very similar lives. They struggle for status , money , property , look after their families rather than strangers. Religion is more often than not a thin veneer covering normal human asperations. I go further labels are often mistaken for character they are suitable hiding places in which basic humanity is often discovered.

No follower of Christ is to be blindly obedient. That is why the Beroeans were so highly commended for checking up on what they were taught. Acts 17:10-11.

However you are unfortunately all too accurate about most faiths, even those who call themselves Christian but in fact are far from it.

There is one absolutely simple way to understand if someone is truly Christian. Are they doing as Matthew 7:21-23 says they must. Do they even know what God's will is? Let alone do it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 2:57:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

How many slaves do you feel as though you should own?


What do you think the going price is for a Syrian refugee, should "house servant" be the desired occupation to press him/her into?

Don't say humanity has out grown it, don't say God doesn't tolerate slavery, we both know that is a crock, but if you were interested in trying make an escape hatch, you could explain why a God who never changes doesn't want you to have slaves, but did make allowances for it, and even occasionally demanded it, in the past. But doesn't now.

that is a "change" to put it mildly,

It is not God who has changed to bring that about, it is the situation they were living in.

A situation for which he made rules, allowances and on occasion, demands. While we might now find the practice abhorrent, God, on the other hand, doesn't: he made rules, allowances and on occasions, demands for it.

Yes, God made allowances for it because it was preferable to just letting people die of starvation, a very nasty death.

People still sell themselves into a similar form of slavery today, and it is perfectly acceptable to society. My fianc"e herself was"employed" in that way as a Maid in the Lebanon.

"similar form", that being concubine, some one you could legally beat, and are responsible for assuming your slave does harm to some one else's property. No, sir, I believe you are intentionally deflecting the intent.

In fact the biblical idea of slavery was very similar to the idea of "being in service" between the wars.

What you fail to understand is that slavery is a word which has been made dirty by the slave trade, but in reality appears in many other forms, most of which are very acceptable today in society.

Slavery was made dirty by being slavery? Say it ain't so.



At the time it was simply a matter of keeping such ones alive, and that was why they sold themselves into slavery rather than dying and letting their families die.

My what rose colored glasses you view some interpretations through. And as for the conquered peoples, or others that were not "indentured servants", it was just tough luck.

No, my glasses are completely clear, unlike the thick black lenses you view it all through.

You only see the bad in the situation. I see both sides.

Then that would still mean God is tolerant of the "bad" in the situation, and as I stated previously, made allowances and demands for it.


Recognising the need for it, Jehovah chose to regulate it so that it would be fair on all, including the slaves.

.... um... what? No, seriously, what? What do you think killing all the men and male children of a conquered people meant, along with keeping alive those women that have never "known" a man? Do you think those females will be regarded even remotely better than "property"?

A wife has always been regarded as the property of her husband, throughout history, even in very recent times a woman ceased to exist under her maiden name and was given not only her husbands surname, but his forenames also. Hence an Emma Sturgeon, who married a James William Peters would become Mrs James William Peters in law if not in reality.

You didn't answer the question.

I have no idea when, or even if, that situation has been changed legally.

Taken many concubines, have you?

He would never have condoned slavery as it was practised in the 18th century, or as it is practised now.

Speculation through interpretation, the likes of which you are declaring special knowledge. Given God's apparent sentiment on slavery in the Bible, I disagree with your conclusion.

You may do, and that is your prerogative. However it does not make me wrong, of itself.

Just biased.

The knowledge I am given is not so special that no-one else can have it. Jehovah would love everyone to rely on him enough for such guidance. (James 1:5-8). He would be more than happy to provide it to any that are willing to take up the challenge.

After all, every one who does is a "bloody nose" to Satan, his arch-enemy, so it is to his benefit if we do.


Starvation is a nasty and painful death. Jehovah's provisions made sure that did not happen to any who were willing to become slaves in exchange for their upkeep.

... again, this is selective and bears no relevance to those that were not voluntarily engaged in the practice.

Of course it does. Don't think they didn't have a choice. They could have refused and been left to die of starvation.

Or outright killed once they denied being some one's slave: that's what you do with property that is defunct: dispose of it.

Death is always the other option with Jehovah. Just because that isn't expressed every time in scripture doesn't mean it isn't there, it is a given that it is always there because it is how Jehovah works.

You speak only in ignorance that could be so easily removed.


As with so many who criticise as you do, you fail to understand thins fully. That is your error, not Jehovah's.

Or your rose colored glasses. Take them off for just a few.

I don;t wear rose coloured glasses. I see both sides of every argument before I decide on it. Always have, always will, nothing about scripture has given me any reason to do anything other than continue in that vein.

I would suggest that you stop being solely negative and consider the positive side of things as well, but currently you are blinded to it by those dark glasses you have permanently attached.

And note I do say as well. Like me, you have to look at all sides of an issue to get to the truth.

I stand for the positive side, because I have already studied both sides and have made my decision.

And this evidence is based on your preference for viewing indentured servitude as the only form of "slavery" (which by its very name, it isn't). Forgive me if I am not so inclined to soften the edges.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 3:04:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 2:42:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:53:25 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

So, should I assume you believe it's still forbidden to eat shellfish?

No, you should not. That was a part of the Mosaic Law which has served it's purpose. You can eat what you like as long as it is as well bled as you can make it, with today's storage methods and sewerage they are much less likely to be as harmful as they were back then.

God's concern for our well-being only changes when the need for such concern does. It is always there, and is behind every law he has ever made.

Now we are under principle, not law, we are much freer, provided we don't abuse that freedom.

Personally I don't like shell fish. I agree entirely with one person's opinion of them when he described eating oysters like "Eating snot out of a tortoise shell". A very accurate description of all shellfish as far as I am concerned.

So you've just proven that not everything in the Bible is for us today. I would submit to you that women being banned from speaking in church is one of those things.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 4:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 3:04:33 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:42:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:53:25 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

So, should I assume you believe it's still forbidden to eat shellfish?

No, you should not. That was a part of the Mosaic Law which has served it's purpose. You can eat what you like as long as it is as well bled as you can make it, with today's storage methods and sewerage they are much less likely to be as harmful as they were back then.

God's concern for our well-being only changes when the need for such concern does. It is always there, and is behind every law he has ever made.

Now we are under principle, not law, we are much freer, provided we don't abuse that freedom.

Personally I don't like shell fish. I agree entirely with one person's opinion of them when he described eating oysters like "Eating snot out of a tortoise shell". A very accurate description of all shellfish as far as I am concerned.

So you've just proven that not everything in the Bible is for us today. I would submit to you that women being banned from speaking in church is one of those things.

I can see why you say that, but strictly speaking it is not true.

The Law Code is still for today, but not as a rigid Law Code, simply as the source of the principles we live by.

The dietary rules were only ever given for the sake of the Israelites health, especially when in the wilderness, There is no actual religious significance to them other than teaching us to value our life sufficiently to eat carefully and healthily.

Every principle Jesus taught us was based on the law, and he only did so to teach us how to extract principle from the law for ourselves.

He was, in short, making a start on the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:33.

So yes, everything in scripture is for today, though not all of it in exactly the same form.

Many of the prophecies in scripture are now history. they too have changed from being a forecast to being a proof of Jehovah reliability, in respect of the prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled..
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 5:30:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 4:29:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 3:04:33 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:42:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:53:25 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:

Many of the prophecies in scripture are now history. they too have changed from being a forecast to being a proof of Jehovah reliability, in respect of the prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled..

Has this little forecast been fulfilled?

Jesus said, "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write ... I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it ... because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." (Rev 3: 7-10)
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 7:01:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 2:46:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:46:59 PM, fromantle wrote:

No follower of Christ is to be blindly obedient. That is why the Beroeans were so highly commended for checking up on what they were taught. Acts 17:10-11.

'Tis funny that YOU, of all people, would say that, for no sect in history - save perhaps the Roman Catholics during certain periods - have ever demanded such blind obedience to questionable speculations as the WatchTower group. Leaders of the group fully admitted in court, of all places, that even if the teaching is palpably false, the WatchTower demands that everyone proclaim it.

By the way, the good ole BotchTower didn't eliminate Acts 20: 28 from its "translation" - nor did they "translate" it from Greek-to-English. They did what they usually do: they simply re-wrote it, i. e. wrote a whole new passage, and called it a "translation":

"Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20: 28, ASV)

That's why I have said that it is erroneous .... and flat-out deceptive .... to claim that the NWT is a translation at all. It's not. There is no way in the world to translate the Greek of Acts 20: 28 as "his own Son". It's not there - not in any manuscript, out of thousands.

They'd be way better off to call it, "The New World Commentary".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 7:57:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.
Have you ever sat next to a hysterical woman in church?
Christians accept they may not have all the answers. But what they have is right and that is better than a theory.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:30:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 4:29:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 3:04:33 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:42:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:53:25 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

So, should I assume you believe it's still forbidden to eat shellfish?

No, you should not. That was a part of the Mosaic Law which has served it's purpose. You can eat what you like as long as it is as well bled as you can make it, with today's storage methods and sewerage they are much less likely to be as harmful as they were back then.

God's concern for our well-being only changes when the need for such concern does. It is always there, and is behind every law he has ever made.

Now we are under principle, not law, we are much freer, provided we don't abuse that freedom.

Personally I don't like shell fish. I agree entirely with one person's opinion of them when he described eating oysters like "Eating snot out of a tortoise shell". A very accurate description of all shellfish as far as I am concerned.

So you've just proven that not everything in the Bible is for us today. I would submit to you that women being banned from speaking in church is one of those things.

I can see why you say that, but strictly speaking it is not true.

The Law Code is still for today, but not as a rigid Law Code, simply as the source of the principles we live by.

The dietary rules were only ever given for the sake of the Israelites health, especially when in the wilderness, There is no actual religious significance to them other than teaching us to value our life sufficiently to eat carefully and healthily.

Every principle Jesus taught us was based on the law, and he only did so to teach us how to extract principle from the law for ourselves.

He was, in short, making a start on the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:33.

So yes, everything in scripture is for today, though not all of it in exactly the same form.

Many of the prophecies in scripture are now history. they too have changed from being a forecast to being a proof of Jehovah reliability, in respect of the prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled..

You're saying the same thing I am; just in a different way.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:37:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 7:01:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:46:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:46:59 PM, fromantle wrote:

No follower of Christ is to be blindly obedient. That is why the Beroeans were so highly commended for checking up on what they were taught. Acts 17:10-11.

'Tis funny that YOU, of all people, would say that, for no sect in history - save perhaps the Roman Catholics during certain periods - have ever demanded such blind obedience to questionable speculations as the WatchTower group. Leaders of the group fully admitted in court, of all places, that even if the teaching is palpably false, the WatchTower demands that everyone proclaim it.

They do not demand blind obedience. If they did they would not constantly encourage their followers and their students to continually check what they say, as the Beroeans were highly commended for doing.

That is simply another fallacy that you promote.


By the way, the good ole BotchTower didn't eliminate Acts 20: 28 from its "translation" - nor did they "translate" it from Greek-to-English. They did what they usually do: they simply re-wrote it, i. e. wrote a whole new passage, and called it a "translation":

No Anna they did not.

As always you criticise what you cannot possibly know. You have no more idea of who made up that translation committee or who make it up now. You know of a few ex members, yes, but only a few.

Let's see shall we.

Acts 20:27, 28 NWT
27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.

Acts 20:27-28
ASV(i) 27 For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. 28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Acts 20:27-28
ALT(i) 27 "For I did not keep back [anything, but I] declared to you all the counsel [or, the entire plan] of God. 28 "Therefore, continue being on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you [as] overseers, to be shepherding [or, pastoring] the Assembly of the Lord and God, which He acquired through His own blood.

No Anna, they didn't,.

Interestingly did you notice in the Analytical Literal translation where it said in parenthesis [or, the entire plan] on the end of verse 27?

Even they recognise that Jehovah has a plan which scripture needs to fit into.


"Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20: 28, ASV)

That is not the ASV version as you have stated, that is the NWT version, lol. I assume that was a careless error on your part.

Acts 20:28
ALT(i) 28 "Therefore, continue being on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you [as] overseers, to be shepherding [or, pastoring] the Assembly of the Lord and God, which He acquired through His own blood.

The only difference in meaning there is the bit we have been arguing over, and even in that they agree with the TEV and The Holy Bible in Modern English.


That's why I have said that it is erroneous .... and flat-out deceptive .... to claim that the NWT is a translation at all. It's not. There is no way in the world to translate the Greek of Acts 20: 28 as "his own Son". It's not there - not in any manuscript, out of thousands.

It is a translation. Nothing will change that fact. I would love to see your proof of that lying claim, but I know you have none, because you weren't there, and you only know the names of a few of the translators from the past, and not one of the names of the current committee who are still trying to improve the accuracy.

They'd be way better off to call it, "The New World Commentary".

They have their own "commentary" included in with the 2013 translation, lol. Chapter by chapter.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:38:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2015 8:30:24 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 4:29:56 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 3:04:33 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 2:42:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 1:53:25 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 10:32:06 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 9/10/2015 9:50:49 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 9/10/2015 8:49:29 AM, fromantle wrote:
Christians won't allow their consciences to judge the Bible, and as a result get into fantastic theological contortions when they sense the Bible is wrong.
In all things we should be guided by our conscience and as we experience life it is honed and sharpened.
Now the greatest enemy of conscience is the desire to satisfy our own ambitions , often it masks the conscience and guides our actions.
We would all like an infalible guide-book and many turn to ancient books to guide themselves.
Even this resort does not silence ambition and desire so to prevenr the necessity for change we invent the Devil.
A classic example of such a text is : ' Let the women keep silence in the churches.'
To me it is simply wrong I have no need to struggle to prove it is right.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with this text, especially since it was an ancient custom of its day, and never meant to be a doctrine for all time.

Scripture is for all time, not just for back then.

God never changes.

So, should I assume you believe it's still forbidden to eat shellfish?

No, you should not. That was a part of the Mosaic Law which has served it's purpose. You can eat what you like as long as it is as well bled as you can make it, with today's storage methods and sewerage they are much less likely to be as harmful as they were back then.

God's concern for our well-being only changes when the need for such concern does. It is always there, and is behind every law he has ever made.

Now we are under principle, not law, we are much freer, provided we don't abuse that freedom.

Personally I don't like shell fish. I agree entirely with one person's opinion of them when he described eating oysters like "Eating snot out of a tortoise shell". A very accurate description of all shellfish as far as I am concerned.

So you've just proven that not everything in the Bible is for us today. I would submit to you that women being banned from speaking in church is one of those things.

I can see why you say that, but strictly speaking it is not true.

The Law Code is still for today, but not as a rigid Law Code, simply as the source of the principles we live by.

The dietary rules were only ever given for the sake of the Israelites health, especially when in the wilderness, There is no actual religious significance to them other than teaching us to value our life sufficiently to eat carefully and healthily.

Every principle Jesus taught us was based on the law, and he only did so to teach us how to extract principle from the law for ourselves.

He was, in short, making a start on the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:33.

So yes, everything in scripture is for today, though not all of it in exactly the same form.

Many of the prophecies in scripture are now history. they too have changed from being a forecast to being a proof of Jehovah reliability, in respect of the prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled..


You're saying the same thing I am; just in a different way.

Am I? OK, though it doesn't read that way to me.
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2015 8:45:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have seen an hysterical women.preacher on u- tube and I have read the arguments abour that verse by women who want to preach.
Incidentally there is no such thing as a life in theory we all.are walking flesh and blood. There are many genuine Mormon women who have been denied fellowship by arrogant men.I am not a Christian but I'm not blind to the appauling way some Christians treat others. Christians are no worse than others but they spread the myth that they are better.