Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

flaja wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
So, the King James translation of the Bible is the one and only legitimate Christian doctrine?

The AKJ is the only complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of Christian doctrine that I have access to and can read. Since I have no access to translations made prior to 1611 and cannot read any language but English, I cannot comment on pre-1611 English translations or a translation in any other language. I have examined quite a few post-1611 English translations and they all contain false doctrines.

It's good to know that no one can pull the spiritual wool over your eyes.

0 Replies

quoting a 19th Century linguist, blatham wrote:

"The difference between a dialect and a language is that the speakers of one have a navy."

A linguistics professor at university paraphrased that statement something like, "What distinguishes the difference between a language and a dialect is size of one's guns."

This immediately brings to mind the dominance of the Castilian Spanish crown, and its attendant culture over the Catalonian and Aragonese that began early in the 17th Century. That 19th Century linguist may have been recalling the effects and aftermath of the Thirty Years' War when he made that statement.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

blatham wrote:
Every sect considers their ideology or doctrines the most valid, truthful, and closest to the 'original version' of the faith (note that this is the claim made by every group which splinters off..."the church has gone astray with false ideas, bloat and corruption and we are returning it to the pure form."

Which is why any doctrine must be believed as a matter of faith and only God can be the judge of which doctrine is true. And thus it is pointless to discuss matters of faith with anyone who isn't willing to accept the possibility that his faith is false and yours is true.

That last sentence can be reversed, And thus it is pointless to discuss matters of faith with anyone who isn't willing to accept the possibility that your faith is false and his is true.

In otherwords, it is pointless to discuss matters of faith with...peek-a-boo.

0 Replies

Quote:

No I haven't. As long as you have a stony heart you will be unable to understand the things of God. You asked your question in hopes that you would have cause to mock me and denigrate Christians in general. If you have serious, legitimate questions, ask them and be prepared for a serious and honest discussion. Otherwise I won't waste my time with the fool's errand you've asked me to venture on.

I have neither the wish nor the logical grounds to denigrate christians in general.

But 'christians in general' isn't a phrase that makes much sense when you utter it. Your arguments above exclude far more christians in the world than are included. They don't agree with some narrow notion of yours and thus they immediately become false-christians. So, who's doing the denigrating here?

So first, let me ask you a simple historical and theological question? Who or what authorized or authorizes that particular version of the 'bible', which was drawn from translations (not necessarily first generation) from the Greek, the Latin and the Hebrew, as the sole source of legitimate christian faith?

Second, if indeed that version is the sole legitimate source of doctrine and faith, then false 'christian' ideas/groups must be identified through a non-literal (false) interpretation of the book's passages. How else would they be identified if that book is the sole source of doctrine?

Which leads us to a quick investigation of some King James passages. I'd like your response, as a theologian, on what we ought to think or do regarding these passages, given that we apparently must decry dangerous interpretation and instead, accept the KJ passages as the revealed truth, taken literally. Feel free, of course, to verify using your personal KJ bible.

Quote:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

quoting a 19th Century linguist, blatham wrote:
"The difference between a dialect and a language is that the speakers of one have a navy."

A linguistics professor at university paraphrased that statement something like, "What distinguishes the difference between a language and a dialect is size of one's guns."

This immediately brings to mind the dominance of the Castilian Spanish crown, and its attendant culture over the Catalonian and Aragonese that began early in the 17th Century. That 19th Century linguist may have been recalling the effects and aftermath of the Thirty Years' War when he made that statement.

Well, that makes sense.

0 Replies

Back to the main subject of this thread.
In India where all religions are there they had selected or elected a mulslim president.
The present PM is not an hindu.

An Untouchable( according to the indian hindu cast system) was a defence minister.

Religion is a private affair.
politics is a public affair.
Admixing the two is not American culture.
But some are are getting support for their misbehaviour.
I will die as an ATHIEST

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I have neither the wish nor the logical grounds to denigrate christians in general.

I seriously doubt this.

Quote:

But 'christians in general' isn't a phrase that makes much sense when you utter it. Your arguments above exclude far more christians in the world than are included. They don't agree with some narrow notion of yours and thus they immediately become false-christians. So, who's doing the denigrating here?

You misunderstand. You wish to attack me specifically and thereby attack the entire Christian community, i.e., Christians in general.

Quote:

So first, let me ask you a simple historical and theological question? Who or what authorized or authorizes that particular version of the 'bible', which was drawn from translations (not necessarily first generation) from the Greek, the Latin and the Hebrew, as the sole source of legitimate christian faith?

No part of the Bible was originally written in Latin.

Very shortly after James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England from his distant cousin Queen Elizabeth I he convened a conference at the royal palace of Hampton Court. A Puritan, John Reynolds, casually offered a suggestion that a new translation of the Bible be made. King James, who was now James I of England, agreed and had the Anglican Archbishop Laud draw up a set of rules to guide the translation process as well as appoint several teams of scholars to work on the translation.

The first English translation of any part of the Bible came (if I remember right) at the order of King Alfred the Great. Since so many monks and priests were being killed by the invading Danes, Alfred was afraid that the Bible (as well as other books) would be lost in England since it was in Latin at the time and Englishmen apart from monks and priests were the only people who could usually read Latin. In order to preserve the Bible Alfred had partial English (Anglo-Saxon) translations made from existing Latin texts.

Over the next centuries other partial translations were made from Latin texts. It wasn't until just before Henry VIII's break with Rome that any part of the Bible was translated from the original languages into English. This was William Tyndale's New Testament. Tyndale was murdered by Catholics before he could finish his translation of the Old Testament.

Later English translators completed Tyndale's translation and by 1603 several complete English translations had been made from the Bible's original languages. In 1603 the most commonly used English translation was the Geneva Bible, which had been made by Puritans who were exiled to Geneva, Switzerland during the reign of Bloody Mary. However, the Geneva Bible came with copious amounts of marginal notes that amounted to commentary on society in general rather than explanations of the text. Because of the Geneva Bible's hostility to royal authority, James wasn't particularly happy with it.

But even with James' approval at the Hampton Court Conference no known royal decree or parliamentary law has ever been found to give the King James Bible any official status. It's status as the most printed English book and (up until recent years) the most often read English translation of the Bible in all history has never been imposed, attained or supported by any human authority.

For decades following 1611 the Geneva Bible was still the most popular English translation. It wasn't until Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector and had the responsibility for telling printers who had a legally granted monopoly on the Bible (a power that the Crown had previously had, but whose legal validity was doubtful) that the Geneva Bible went out of print in favor of the King James. And even then some editions of the King James continued to include the Geneva Bible's notes.

The succession of English Bibles (apart from the Douay-Rheims Catholic translation) that followed Tyndale (Coverdale's, Mathew's, Great Bible, Geneva and Bishop's Bible) all relied heavily on Tyndale's work and these Bibles often have large portions of identical text taken from Tyndale.

Quote:

Second, if indeed that version is the sole legitimate source of doctrine and faith, then false 'christian' ideas/groups must be identified through a non-literal (false) interpretation of the book's passages. How else would they be identified if that book is the sole source of doctrine?

A literal interpretation or a non-literal interpretation does not automatically guarantee a correct or a false interpretation of the Bible. Whether or not a passage should be interpreted literally or figurative depends on the words of the text and the context of the passage.

Quote:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

Such a sacrifice is no longer valid since Christ completed the Law with His sacrifice on the cross. We are saved by faith in Christ, not by any observance of Mosaic Law.

Furthermore, you cannot judge what is favorable to God by how your neighbors, i.e. the world, reacts. Your responsibility is to God, not the World. Matthew 10:32-33 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Quote:

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Seeing as how I haven't met your daughter, I don't have any way of putting a price on her.

Quote:

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Be reasonable. This law is a matter of sanitation; it has nothing to do with salvation. Furthermore, modern civilization has ways to accomplish what this law is meant to accomplish, so it is not imperative that this law be fulfilled to the letter.

Quote:

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

You're asking me to clarify something that was made by someone I haven't met?

Quote:

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

I now realize I must be talking to a Pharisee:

Mark 2:23-27 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Quote:

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Considering that shellfish are generally scavengers, the prohibition against shellfish is health/safety law, while the prohibition of sodomy is a moral/spiritual law. They are not comparable.

Quote:

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

See my response to your first question.

The manner in which you posed your "questions" is ample illustration of my point that you are not willing to discuss these serious matters in a serious way.

0 Replies

flaja you are a silly goose but damn, you have established your goosiness in rapid order here on a2k. That usually takes several months (noting the rare exceptions of those that establish their goosiness on their 1st post).
I especially liked this line of yours

Quote:

The manner in which you posed your "questions" is ample illustration of my point that you are not willing to discuss these serious matters in a serious way.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a candidates religion is meaningles.
The candidate can worship a mango for all I care.

I wanna know where they stand on issues, not their religious beliefs.

You don't think a candidate's religious beliefs have any effect on his positions regarding the issues?

Everybodies religious beliefs (or lack of them) has an effect on their principals and their stand on issues.
But, I dont need to know what church a candidate attends or what doctrine they follow or anything else about their religious beliefs.
Its none of my business what they believe, unless their beliefs involve hurting children or human sacrifice.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Everybodies religious beliefs (or lack of them) has an effect on their principals and their stand on issues.
But, I dont need to know what church a candidate attends or what doctrine they follow or anything else about their religious beliefs.
Its none of my business what they believe, unless their beliefs involve hurting children or human sacrifice.

You just said that someone's religious beliefs affect their stand on political issues. So why would you not want to know about their religious beliefs? And wouldn't you have to find out about their religious beliefs in order to determine whether or not those beliefs involve hurting children or human sacrifice? If you don't find out about their religious beliefs, how would you know?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

As far as I am concerned, a candidates religion is meaningles.
The candidate can worship a mango for all I care.

I wanna know where they stand on issues, not their religious beliefs.

Oh? You'd have no problem with a fundamentalist Islamic person in high public office?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a candidates religion is meaningles.
The candidate can worship a mango for all I care.

I wanna know where they stand on issues, not their religious beliefs.

Oh? You'd have no problem with a fundamentalist Islamic person in high public office?

I would have the same problem voting for a fundamentalist christian or in fact any religious fundamentalist as I would voting for an islamic fundamentalist. They are all equally dangerous.
Religion has no place in the decision making of government.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
I have neither the wish nor the logical grounds to denigrate christians in general.

flaja: I seriously doubt this.

Not surprising. Your ability to see the good in others is apparently atrophied.

Quote:

Quote: blatham
But 'christians in general' isn't a phrase that makes much sense when you utter it. Your arguments above exclude far more christians in the world than are included. They don't agree with some narrow notion of yours and thus they immediately become false-christians. So, who's doing the denigrating here?

flaja: You misunderstand. You wish to attack me specifically and thereby attack the entire Christian community, i.e., Christians in general.

There's no misunderstanding. You have disclaimed all other versions of christian faith aside from your own as false and unchristian. I have not even disclaimed YOUR faith because, as you possibly apprehend, many members of your own church do not agree with you in what you argue here. Perhaps these members of your own church are false christians too. It appears that must be so in your formulation.

I disclaim and denigrate only your arrogance in suggesting that you, flaja, sit closer to god than others.

Quote:

Quote: blatham
So first, let me ask you a simple historical and theological question? Who or what authorized or authorizes that particular version of the 'bible', which was drawn from translations (not necessarily first generation) from the Greek, the Latin and the Hebrew, as the sole source of legitimate christian faith?

flaja: No part of the Bible was originally written in Latin.

Nor did I say it was. I said the version was taken from, in part, translations from the Latin.

You go on to give some history of the edition. You have not answered the simple historical/theological question put to you. Who or what warrants this text as the single legitimate source of christian doctrine and faith? You offer up only this non-answer...

Quote:

But even with James' approval at the Hampton Court Conference no known royal decree or parliamentary law has ever been found to give the King James Bible any official status. It's status as the most printed English book and (up until recent years) the most often read English translation of the Bible in all history has never been imposed, attained or supported by any human authority.

Your certainty, which I call arrogance and lack of christian humility, suggests that a clear and compelling answer to this theological question sits waiting only for you to type it out here. Please do so.

Quote:

flaja: A literal interpretation or a non-literal interpretation does not automatically guarantee a correct or a false interpretation of the Bible. Whether or not a passage should be interpreted literally or figurative depends on the words of the text and the context of the passage.

And who, in your faith community, establishes which passages are literal and which not? And if not, who establishes the correct figurative reading? Do all the members in your faith community agree absolutely and universally, without dissent or discussion, on these matters?

Quote:

Quote: blatham: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

flaja: Such a sacrifice is no longer valid since Christ completed the Law with His sacrifice on the cross. We are saved by faith in Christ, not by any observance of Mosaic Law.

What is your textual warrant for this claim? Is is now permissable to violate all Mosaic Law? Which can we violate and which not? How do you discern?

Quote:

Quote: blatham
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

flaja: Seeing as how I haven't met your daughter, I don't have any way of putting a price on her.

Again, lazy and superficial. You avoid the dilemma. Perhaps you place it under the category of "biblical passages involving Mosaic Law which are old-fashioned and which we can disregard absolutely since jesus died on the cross"? If so, my previous questions apply again.

Quote:

Quote: blatham
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

flaja: Be reasonable. This law is a matter of sanitation; it has nothing to do with salvation. Furthermore, modern civilization has ways to accomplish what this law is meant to accomplish, so it is not imperative that this law be fulfilled to the letter.

Reason, a cognitive act of the individual, is senior to the inerrant word of god? And reason is also the tool with which we properly determine what is important to salvation and what not?

Quote:

Quote: blatham
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

flaja: You're asking me to clarify something that was made by someone I haven't met?

You avoid again. As the passage states, it is permissible (as a moral and legal matter) for you or I to purchase slaves from neighboring countries. If you wish to claim that it is NOT permissable to purchase slaves, what warrant allows you to ignore or contradict this inerrant passage? Do you place human law above biblical law?

Quote:

The manner in which you posed your "questions" is ample illustration of my point that you are not willing to discuss these serious matters in a serious way.

By 'serious', you must mean in a manner which does not challenge you or your ideology. The contrary is the case. Each one of these is a serious question put to you to answer in a logical and consistent manner.

If you are lacking in the intellectual and spiritual courage or in the theological education to wrestle honestly with these questions, if you are more emotionally, intellectually and spiritually comfortable simply insisting that you know god's intentions better than everyone else, please just say so, for your own spiritual growth if nothing else.

0 Replies

Hey blatham!
I wish Christianty was not so entwined into popular US politics, but it does seem that way to me.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hey blatham!
I wish Christianty was not so entwined into popular US politics, but it does seem that way to me.

Mornin', chumly.

The presence of faith in political culture doesn't bother me, in a general sense. As a liberal, I perceive and acknowledge that many of our liberal or progressive values are greatly informed by quite old and traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism which have come up over 2000 years from, in part, the early christian communities (there are other sources too, of course). And as faith is such a common manifestation in human societies, it really isn't practical or realistic to imagine it might be removed. Having grown up in a Mennonite community of my childhood, I have experience with faith communities who do not insist everyone but they have it all wrong. Where such arrogance is missing, also missing is the rationale or motivation to shove the 'truth' down others' throats.

The problematic aspects here in the US (and in Canada, though less so) arise out of the sort of arrogance and insularity and anti-intellectualism of much of american protestant history. Whereas the Anglican and Catholic traditions have developed deep and rich theologies (born of questioning assumptions and putting 'authorities' to some philosphical rigor), many parts of the american protestant tradition have no such depth. Thus there is a commensurate tendency here towards authoritarianism in many faith groups. flaja is an example. I'm speaking in generalizations here, of course, but given that proviso, it's not difficult to back up those statements.

That authoritarian tendency with american protestantism, and its theological/intellectual shallowness, has unfortunately moved in tandem during certain periods with the authoritarianism which the polity often flirts with. This period is particularly troublesome in this mutually-supporting dynamic.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a candidates religion is meaningles.
The candidate can worship a mango for all I care.

I wanna know where they stand on issues, not their religious beliefs.

Oh? You'd have no problem with a fundamentalist Islamic person in high public office?

I would have the same problem voting for a fundamentalist christian or in fact any religious fundamentalist as I would voting for an islamic fundamentalist. They are all equally dangerous.
Religion has no place in the decision making of government.

What is it about Christian fundamentalism that you find dangerous? Please tell us what a Christian fundamentalist is. What's the difference between a Christian fundamentalist and a non-fundamentalist Christian? And why don't you tell us what a Christian is period- if you really know.

And how can you say religion has no place in government without telling everyone that wants to participate in government that they cannot practice their religion? If my religion tells me that Sodomy is wrong and the law should prohibit the practice, what gives you the right to tell me that I cannot vote accordingly for public office holders or govern accordingly if I were to hold public office?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

As a liberal, I perceive and acknowledge that many of our liberal or progressive values are greatly informed by quite old and traditional notions of charity and egalitarianism which have come up over 2000 years from, in part, the early christian communities (there are other sources too, of course).

Yeah but where is the reasonable expectation to argue that religiosity provides substantive humanitarian values not available to the non-religious?

0 Replies

Let's do this one question at a time for flaja:

1) Who is a Christian Fundementalist?

Quote:

Christian fundamentalists interpret the Bible as the inerrant, factual, and literal word of God. Though each of these terms can be argued as to what exactly the terms mean, it is in any case clear that fundamentalism rejects any modernist critical interpretation of the Bible. They reject most modern scientific findings in biology and geology, or at least greatly reinterpret them to "fit" their view of the Bible. Most believe, for example, that the world was created in seven 24 hour days simply because that is what the Genesis account says. Most fundamentalist also believe that the earth (and the universe) is no more than a few (less than ten) thousand years old based on the genealogies in the Bible. Any findings by science that seem to refute this argument are simply discarded and seen to be "obviously wrong" since it disagrees with the Bible. In other words, "if it disagrees with the Bible (the fundamentalist view of the Bible), then it is wrong and probably straight from Satan." It must be stated for the record that there are differing levels or versions of fundamentalist belief. Some fundamentalists, for example, believe that the Genesis account allows for so the called "day - age" interpretation, in which the days of creation are actually unknown periods of time. Even such "liberal" fundamentalists, however, believe that everything written about in the Bible is an accurate reporting of actual historical events.

This "literal" interpretation of the Bible is very dear to fundamentalist to the extent that most believe that anyone who does not accept this "literal" interpretation are not true Christians. Many "hard core" fundamentalist even believe that anyone who does not use the King James (1611) version of the Bible is destined for Hell.

link

Joe(couldn't have said it better myself)Nation

0 Replies

Hey Blatham,
I forgot to add: your claim falls prey to the logical fallacy called "Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem" in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Not surprising. Your ability to see the good in others is apparently atrophied.

Define good. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). By definition, if you are not a Christian you must still be a sinner and thus you cannot be good.

Quote:

There's no misunderstanding. You have disclaimed all other versions of christian faith aside from your own as false and unchristian.

Because they are.

BTW: Why is it that you cannot follow the standards conventions of punctuation and properly capitalize the word Christian? Is this your way of being passive aggressive towards Christianity?

Quote:

Nor did I say it was. I said the version was taken from, in part, translations from the Latin.

This is exactly what you did say:

"So first, let me ask you a simple historical and theological question? Who or what authorized or authorizes that particular version of the 'bible', which was drawn from translations (not necessarily first generation) from the Greek, the Latin and the Hebrew, as the sole source of legitimate christian faith?"

"Drawn from translationsfrom the Greek, the Latin" The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It was not written in Latin as you implied with your question. By including Latin with the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, you did imply that Latin is also an original language.

Quote:

You go on to give some history of the edition. You have not answered the simple historical/theological question put to you. Who or what warrants this text as the single legitimate source of christian doctrine and faith? You offer up only this non-answer...

I did say that there is no known law or royal decree behind the popularity of the King James translation.

New Testament manuscripts are divided into what scholars call text types. Opinion varies as to what criteria should determine which text type any given manuscript copy belongs to; scholars don't even agree on how many different text types exist. However, there are a few text types that are generally accepted- Byzantine and Alexandrian are just a few of them. New Testament documents are classified by vocabulary used as well as things like the arrangement of text material. The AKJ is based on a printed Greek text that was compiled by Erasmus and is collectively known as the Textus Receptus. The manuscript copies that Erasmus used generally have Byzantine Text Type characteristics. Modern English translations generally rely on manuscripts that have the Alexandrian Text Type. Critics of the AKJ claim that the Alexandrian documents are older than the Byzantine documents, but this conclusion isn't supported by the actual evidence. There is ample original language manuscripts as well as early translations that show Byzantine characteristics that are at least as old as the Alexandrian documents.

Just prior to Constantine's rise as Emperor of Rome the Emperor Diocletian ordered an empire-wide persecution of Christians. Diocletian wanted to promote political unity within the Empire by having everyone worship the sun as a god. Diocletian also ordered the Christians to turn over their Scripture to the government authorities so they could be destroyed. Legitimate Christians refused and many suffered persecution and martyrdom. Some false Christians willingly complied with Diocletian's order and turned in their copies of Scripture while still other false Christians intentionally prepared false copies of Scripture and turned them over to the authorities as decoys. I would venture that at least some of the non-Byzantine documents are the result of these decoys, while people gave their lives to protect the integrity of the Byzantine documents that lead to the King James Translation. I accept the AKJ's because it is the authority that God has lead me to accept and God's guidance is confirmed by the history behind the AKJ.

Quote:

Your certainty, which I call arrogance and lack of christian humility, suggests that a clear and compelling answer to this theological question sits waiting only for you to type it out here. Please do so.

My certainty is based on the history of the AKJ. If you can produce a copy of any royal decree or parliamentary law that vests any authority in the AKJ or mandates its use, please produce it. And even if such decree or law was made during James' lifetime, it was never enforced. Not even the translators of the AKJ used the AKJ exclusively. Most translators had pulpit positions within the Church of England, but they didn't all use the AKJ. Some used earlier translations while others could translate from the original languages as they preached from the pulpit relying on original language passages which they had memorized.

Quote:

And who, in your faith community, establishes which passages are literal and which not?

My faith community has no such authority other than God's guidance which He gives because of our faith in Him. This is a spiritual matter- something you couldn't understand.

Quote:

What is your textual warrant for this claim?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

And the Book of Romans.

Quote:

Is is now permissable to violate all Mosaic Law? Which can we violate and which not?

You obviously haven't read what I said in my previous post. The Mosaic Laws pertaining to salvation (and by extension Jewish ritual) are now moot because of Christ's sacrifice. The Mosaic Laws pertaining to health and sanitation laws are now moot because of modern civilization (but still in effect where modern civilization doesn't exist). Mosaic laws pertaining to morality are still very much in effect because the are necessary to maintain a functional society.

Quote:

Again, lazy and superficial.

How so? I'm not going to buy something sight unseen.

Quote:

You avoid the dilemma.

What dilemma?

Quote:

Reason, a cognitive act of the individual, is senior to the inerrant word of god? And reason is also the tool with which we properly determine what is important to salvation and what not?

No. I ask you to approach this issue in a reasonable manner. It is not a salvation issue and you cannot legitimately make it one. It is a practical issue pertaining to health and sanitation and it is no longer necessary because of the technology offered by modern civilization. But, if you don't live in a society that has modern sanitary technology, then this law would still be needed and should still be obeyed.

Quote:

You avoid again.

I am not going to be so presumptuous as to try putting words in your friend's mouth. Perhaps if I could talk to him directly I could try to explain what he has said to you. I am not going to offer an explanation for what he said based on your hearsay.

Quote:

As the passage states, it is permissible (as a moral and legal matter) for you or I to purchase slaves from neighboring countries. If you wish to claim that it is NOT permissable to purchase slaves, what warrant allows you to ignore or contradict this inerrant passage? Do you place human law above biblical law?

Just because the Bible regulates the buying of slaves from other countries, does not mean that you have to buy/own slaves or that the people from these other countries are obligated to sell slaves to you. If you choose to buy slaves and someone is willing to sell slaves to you, you have an obligation to obey the Bible's laws regarding the use and treatment of slaves because they are laws pertaining to morality. The Bible's laws governing slavery do not preclude us from making civil laws that prohibit slavery altogether. The Bible does not obligate anyone to own a slave, sell a slave or be a slave. But if slavery is allowed under your civil laws, you must treat slaves in accordance to the Bible's laws.

0 Replies

Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know