The Redhead

Like much of the books of Moses? Books back then were often Psuedographical... This is no different than most of those books... The idea you cannot test two divergent copies of the same book, look for divergence, find very little and not realize that these are largely uncorrupted is simply "excusing" the ideation of the Arrogant who decided that Christ must have been mistaken when using it as Canon...
 
Damocles said:
Like much of the books of Moses? Books back then were often Psuedographical... This is no different than most of those books...
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But, which books of Moses where Psuedographical?

The idea you cannot test two divergent copies of the same book, look for divergence, find very little and not realize that these are largely uncorrupted is simply "excusing" the ideation of the Arrogant who decided that Christ must have been mistaken when using it as Canon...
Click to expand...

I believe God decides what is included in the Bible. He chose not to have Enoch included, for whatever reasons. I believe God has guided the Canon and the existing Canon is the one He intends us to keep. However, if I am wrong, it will be added in the future.

The point here, Damocles, is that while not all of the inspired texts are in the Bible, all the texts which are included in the Bible are inspired. Meaning, the Bible is perfect whether or not Enoch is included.
 
Brent said:
Fair enough. But, which books of Moses where Psuedographical?



I believe God decides what is included in the Bible. He chose not to have Enoch included, for whatever reasons. I believe God has guided the Canon and the existing Canon is the one He intends us to keep. However, if I am wrong, it will be added in the future.

The point here, Damocles, is that while not all of the inspired texts are in the Bible, all the texts which are included in the Bible are inspired. Meaning, the Bible is perfect whether or not Enoch is included.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't see any reason why all of the texts of the bible must have been instpired. If God doesn't play an active role in our lives, it would be very easy for someone to slip something in there just to set out an agenda. For instance, all the texts that deify Christ were made after he died. Reminds me of the deification of Bhudda, there was no reason for it, the belief in a man just went out of control.
 
I doubt that any fanatical follower of christ would deliberately mishandle the bible if he believed it would send him to hell...

Then again, translation is a tricky thing. The most idiotic teacher I've ever had in my life once told me that all language has the same words, it's just written differently. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each language has it's own connatations, different words for the same things that mean different things about those things, different pronunciations themselves produce very different feelings from the words that are spoken. Morphing one language to another makes big corruptions no matter how good the traslator, and the bible has gone through several translations to get to English. No untranslated or uncorrupted text exists, actually, if I am correct. Also, it would be very easy for the tranlator's to slightly change the meanings to more strongly make a point that he THOUGHT god was making, and for a snowball affect to happen in further translations. Whoo... language is a complex thing. God shoulda just written everything in English.
 
It begins with faith, Watermark.

If the Bible isn't trustworthy, then our (Christian) faith is in vain, in my opinon.
If one thing isn't true, what else isn't true? The resurrection, perhaps?

That is why I don't like picking and choosing what is inspired and what isn't. The Bible says it's all inspired, and I believe it.

Regards,
Brent
 
Funny... you liberals talk about how it's "OK to be gay," but then you call conservatives gay, as if being gay is an insult. In other words, you liberals really hate homosexuals.

We just know how much homosexuality winds up frustrated little-Hitlers like you Brent.

And even if it was an insult, it doesn't equate to 'hating' gays.

Don't you have logic and reasoning lessons in your school, Brent?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Funny... you liberals talk about how it's "OK to be gay," but then you call conservatives gay, as if being gay is an insult. In other words, you liberals really hate homosexuals.

We just know how much homosexuality winds up frustrated little-Hitlers like you Brent.

And even if it was an insult, it doesn't equate to 'hating' gays.

Don't you have logic and reasoning lessons in your school, Brent?
Click to expand...

Seems strange to hear a guy who rants on about Jewish Israel and has Hitler's favorite philosopher as his avatar to call someone else "Hitler".
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

Did you also note how Nietzsche was anti-Socialist? I've always found it strange how you who are such a far left Socialist and anti-individualist would affiliate himself with Nietzsche.
 
Don't you have logic and reasoning lessons in your school, Brent?
//

Probably not, I suspect Brent went to a religious operated school. where does logic fit into religion ?
 
TheDanold said:
Seems strange to hear a guy who rants on about Jewish Israel and has Hitler's favorite philosopher as his avatar to call someone else "Hitler".
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

Did you also note how Nietzsche was anti-Socialist? I've always found it strange how you who are such a far left Socialist and anti-individualist would affiliate himself with Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

Well considering Nietzche predated the Nazis by sometime and that his words were twisted by them, I don't think that is a valid point.

Also, he isn't ranting about JEWISH Israel, but Israel itself.

I am serious, I think you people literally have no brains if you can't distinguish between the two.
 
Brent said:
I was home-schooled from age 9 to 16, when I began my college studies.
Click to expand...

That does explain so much--- mommy was always telling him that he was the smartest kid in the world, so he grew up to believe it. He also missed out on the social skills of high school and the age experience of college. No wonder he is so fucked up.
 
uscitizen said:
But girls are nasty and to be avoided because the like sex ?
Yeah you blend in well :)
Click to expand...


No, I simply choose to avoid close relationships with young women who might attempt to corrupt me. I can be friends with them, but I am not going to put myself in a situation where I'm alone with them. An example is that co-worker of mine. She is a pastor's daughter who is rebelling.

I believe sexual relations are fine within marriage. No, not just fine -- necessary. :)
 
Brent said:
No, I simply choose to avoid close relationships with young women who might attempt to corrupt me. I can be friends with them, but I am not going to put myself in a situation where I'm alone with them. An example is that co-worker of mine. She is a pastor's daughter who is rebelling.

I believe sexual relations are fine within marriage. No, not just fine -- necessary. :)
Click to expand...
Be sure not to let any black cats cross your path either. Oh, and careful with the mirrors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top