The Bible does not condemn self defense
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Interesting Tez3. But actually, for a long time I didn't know either. I can remember when I was young, and it became popular to use Xmas, some people said it was taking Christ out of Christmas. It sounded OK to me, and I knew of nothing to dispute that, so was mildly offended. But indeed, even these days it is not common knowledge, at least in the USA. Perhaps in the UK, or other English speaking countries or in religions where it is common to want to abbreviate Christ in usage with other words. Even then, I think the more common abbreviation might have been Xp, equating to the Cr in Christ. I know I personally prefer to leave Christ in Christian or Christmas, over the slang use of Xmas. And frankly, I never saw Xtian other than here at MT, maybe I need to get out more.
Yep because it says that in the 'Old Testament', always did.
Xtian is Christian, you aren't leaving it out, it's just the proper spelling from the Greek.
On birds and bats. Leviticus - Chapter 11 Parshah Shemini - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
There's very good reasons for these laws when you are wandering tribe in the desert, the laws of kashrut are basic sanitary and hygiene rules which hopefully keep people safe from food poisoning not that it helped in old Russia, they killed the Jews when they didn't go down with things like food poisoning etc believing they didn't get things like that through witchcraft rather than good hygiene. The Laws here are the basis of how to get a people who lived in slavery to a point where they could live in and continue to run their own country, the Laws however these days are administered in the spirit of modernity, they aren't kept as they were but are constantly debated, reasoned and questioned to make them valid for modern life as they have always been. Bear in mind though that there are many Jewish thoughts, all expressed as we are encouraged to do!
Leviticus - My Jewish Learning
This is something for the Jewish people and something I find hard to believe that Xtians can either relate to or even use because it isn't about or for them.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the verse(s) on forgiveness of sin in the Old Testament. Thanks.
X in Greek is as you mentioned before, the letter Chi. You would need X, then p for an 'r' sound, then 'i(without the dot)' for the 'i' sound. That would make Christian. So actually, two more letters beside the X are needed. But I think by now most readers here on MT know what that means, so no worry from my side of the fence. (EDIT) Oops, I forgot to mention the greek letter for the 's' sound.
I didn't see your last paragraph as sufficient as I had hoped. I do understand how many of the dietary laws were for hygiene. I am surprised, I thought you, or someone, would point out the fact that Christians are excused from dietary restraints by Acts where Peter was offered a container of common and unclean things and told to eat, and refused them three times, but being told that the food was cleansed by God. Many of we Christians take to to mean we are released from those old dietary laws. I din't want to mention that, and risk offending you, until I gave you a chance to answer. I still hope it doesn't offend you as it comes from a source you don't consider inspired.
I was hoping you might know something of the old meaning of fowl. Apparently it could include bats and certain insects.
Last edited:
If My people who are called by My name humble themselves, pray, seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.—II Chronicles 7:14
I'm curious. Is there any bit in the Bible that says "the following passage is intended as a metaphor, do not take it literally?" I don't recall ever seeing such a passage, but I'm sure I've missed stuff.
Biblical literalism is actually a fairly recent development in Christianity. Throughout most of the history of the religion there has been acceptance of the idea that the Bible contains content couched in metaphor which needs to be properly interpreted. Even today, that is the majority view among Christians, although a substantial minority (particularly in American evangelical circles) claim to subscribe to strict Biblical literalism and inerrancy.
Personally, I've never met anyone who actually subscribes to the literal truth of every passage in the bible, although I've met a number who claim to. In general, they seem to be rather selective about which lines they take literally. It would be ... interesting to encounter someone who actually took every bit of it completely literally.
I've run into a few people making that statement. It makes me very curious. How exactly did you decide that particular English translation out of the hundreds out there is the one and only correct translation? There's nothing in the Bible itself that states the KJV is the one true translation. I'm not aware of any major denomination that has officially claimed the KJV to be the only correct version. How did you determine the KJV to be the only word of God in English?
Did you examine all the other English translations and compare?
Did you study ancient Greek and Hebrew and examine the earliest manuscripts in those languages?
Are you following some particular religious leader who has endorsed the KJV as the only true word?
Did you receive a personal divine revelation telling you which translation is correct?
Do you have an opinion on which is the one true translation in any other language, such as French or German?
Inquiring minds want to know.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Thanks for that. I think there may be more. But I looked it up, and 2nd Chronicles 7:12-14 says:
That seems somewhat tied to the idea of sacrifice that all Jews were required to perform periodically or specifically when they sinned. I haven't looked that up in a long time, but I think that was the only way the Jewish people could get their sins forgiven, was through sacrifice. As you know, as a Christian, I believe I no longer need to perform sacrifices, since I believe what the Bible says, that Christ by His sacrifice, shedding His blood, paid the price for the sins of all past, present, and future sins for those that are saved.
You are mistaken in the belief that Jews would only get their sins forgiven if they sacrificed, the way to have your sins forgiven is to be repentant then your sins are forgiven. However that is only sins against G-d, if they are against a person then only that person can forgive. The purpose of sacrifice is atonement ( and in early thought on 'cleansing') not forgiveness which would already be given. When atoning one has to also try to put things right, hence the eye for an eye law. If your sins are forgiven before you do them do you also have to put things right or to atone for your deed or is 'forgiveness' the end of it? One has to be responsible for one's actions,
Jewish thought on Chronicles ( which isn't the literal word of G-d, it's a history) The Book of Chronicles - My Jewish Learning
As for fowl and bats, I can't see why it matters, don't eat the birds named and don't eat bats. The eating of bats has been blamed for the Ebola virus epidemic, they carry disease a good reason not to eat them. The ancients would have seen things in the sky with wings, without scientific knowledge I imagine they'd just call them birds regardless of whether we now know they aren't. I don't think it's considered of much importance really.
I wouldn't point out something to you from something I haven't read! I have never studied Xtian theology or read your books.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Only a few? More's the pity from my point of view. Fundamental Baptists believe the KJV is the only correct and perfect translation in English. You can find many preachers and lay people who believe that as well.
I have looked at other translations, and read books that talk about other translations versus the King James Version. I don't know if you are really interested or just trying to shoot me and other KJV believers down. If you are really interested, and wish to spend time learning for yourself, as opposed to looking for short bits and pieces of things to justify what you already believe, I would suggest you get the book Answers to Your Bible Version Questions by David Daniels. Among other places, it can be found at Answers To Your Bible Version Questions - by David W. Daniels Another very good book would be An Understandable History Of The Bible, by Dr.Samuel C. Gipp. It is a much longer read but of course, has a great deal more information. If you go to An Understandable History of the Bible - by Samuel C. Gipp you will find where you can order a later version, but you can also read the online 1987 version as well. There are many other shorter books you can read as well, such as Things That Are Different Are Not The Same at Things that are different are not the same The truth about the battle for the preserved King James Bible Mickey P Carter Amazon.com Books or at Jesus ... is He God s Son or God s servant you can find Look What's Missing, also by Daniels. If or as you read all those, feel free to ask me any questions you might have in the forum or by PM.
I'm guessing the rest of your questions are really just rhetorical, If not let me know.
It was a sincere question. I'm always interested in how people decide on their beliefs, whether or not I agree with them.
Some follow-up questions:
When you say Fundamental Baptists, are you referring to a specific organization, such as the FBFI or are you saying that KJVOnly-ism is universal among IFB congregations in general?
Am I correct in interpreting your answer to mean that you based your decision to believe in the KJV as the one true English-language Bible based on reading books such as the ones you cite? If so, have you also read books arguing for other translations and/or books arguing that there is no one true perfect translation?
I'm curious as to why Xtians believe in the Old Testament and believe it pertains to them. It doesn't bother me a lot that Xtians have taken it to be a Xtian thing but am bemused as to why they would. Put it this way, if I did something here in the UK and used the American Constitution to justify that act saying I had rights under it, I would be told in no uncertain terms that I wasn't an American and I wasn't in the USA so it had nothing to do with me, it belongs to another people, that's the same way I look at the Xtians quoting and using the 'Old Testament', I mean why? More often than not it is mistranslated and misunderstood because there is no commentary. How can it be used without commentary?
I imagine by now PG has long abandoned us to our very interesting and civilised discussion! It has digressed a bit but not far from the premise of SD being allowed because that encompasses people's beliefs which are always interesting. The problem of self defence has taxed the Jewish mind for a long time, due to our status often as 'guests' in a country, do you stand up for yourself and risk making things worse for your people or do you stay quiet and hope it will pass? There's many answers to that conundrum and none of them are wrong or right.
I imagine by now PG has long abandoned us to our very interesting and civilised discussion! It has digressed a bit but not far from the premise of SD being allowed because that encompasses people's beliefs which are always interesting. The problem of self defence has taxed the Jewish mind for a long time, due to our status often as 'guests' in a country, do you stand up for yourself and risk making things worse for your people or do you stay quiet and hope it will pass? There's many answers to that conundrum and none of them are wrong or right.
Dr.Smith
Orange Belt
This is all really about personal choices and decesions, trying to validate your own beliefs about spiritual matters through arguing and conflict is a bad thing lols. We all have to come to terms with ourselves and who we really are, what we believe about religion is a really really big part of that, no matter what path you choose its best to walk it quietly and make well informed decesions. Its personal, Leave it at that.
Well, it's a good job we aren't arguing here then isn't it. We aren't trying to validate our beliefs, I don't think any of us need to. We aren't trying to make anyone change their minds we are just discussing something as this is a place for discussion. No one is insulting anyone nor is anyone insulted.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Couple mistakes there..... First..... not a dude.... as for the rest.... I'm simply going to get out of range
Well, the Old Testament has been part of the Christian faith ever since the dawn of Christianity. Christianity was originally a Jewish splinter sect, after all.
Matthew 5:19 can be used to justify adherence to Mosaic law, although opinions diverge hugely in various Christian circles as to what aspects of that law should apply to Christians.
Regarding the need (or lack thereof) for commentary in order to understand the scripture - that's another schismatic point among Christians. Some believe in the need for exegesis, understanding historical context, and so on. Others believe that the correct meaning is apparent to the layperson without scholarly interpretation.
In conclusion, Christianity is a land of contrasts.
Would it be inappropriate, rude or disrespectful to post part of an index of a humorous, tongue in cheek look at a new, modernized translation of the Good Book that a friend of mine has been writing for the last three years? (He attends Mass every week and considers himself a good Christian)
He always reminds me that God gave him his sense of humor.
He always reminds me that God gave him his sense of humor.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
The "Look! Look at my cool workout!" thread
- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
-
-