pop, question ...

[RadioFan]

From the "Can Non-Christians be Moral" thread:

I agree with many of his statements regarding organized religion and how many of Jesus's followers corrupted His teachings.

Some might say that slashing the Bible up and rewriting it to fit the imagination of one's own mind is a corruption of the teachings of God.

Yeah, I'm nitpicking, perhaps.

Question pop: What about translation?

Given it's human nature to pretty much corrupt everything we touch -- especially that which is sacred -- don't you think it's at least possible that guys along the way translated the Bible to "fit" their own imagination?

Hell, just look at all the English versions of the Bible there are today, not to mention translating various works two, three or four more times, from their original language and the context of the time?

Do you honestly believe the translators got every single word "right?"

Denominations out front say no, imo.

And before you say, "It's God's word that's important ..." God's word is different, literally, because the Bibles are different, which is the crux of my question.

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. You too, Dio.

The resident tards need not respond, though I'm sure you will anyway. TIA.

[battery chucka' one]

I don't care if I'm what you consider a 'resident' tard. I am going to put in my two cents on this one.

There is a huge difference between somebody translating 'poco' to be little, wee, tiny, or small, and somebody just deciding that the word offends them and, therefore, shouldn't be in the Bible at all.

How many messages can you think that are left out of the NASB or NIV that were in the KJV Bible? I know that, rarely, the entire translation is different. But, again, it's just one or two verses. The story of the rich young man is still the story of a rich young man. Christ instructs him to do the same thing in all translations, whether it's to sell all he owns and give the money to the poor or to retail his assets and reallocate the profit to the economically challenged. It's not as if the mainstream translations just decide that the message is omittable.

That is all. If either Dio or Pop can answer better for you, I hope they do.

[RadioFan]

If either Dio or Pop can answer better for you, I hope they do.

To wit.

[poptart]

It's an excellent question, RF.
If someone says, "Show me the Word of God," which Bible version do you show him?
Is there A Word of God?

This could be a VERY long answer, so I'll condense my thoughts and keep it brief.

First, Jefferson's 'Bible' butchered fundamental doctrines.
No divinity of Jesus Christ, no virgin birth, no trinity, great diminishing of miracles ... and on and on .....
As chucka' pointed out, the 'modern' translations continue to keep fundamental truths intact, although wording is somewhat different.

There are hardcore King James ONLY folks.
I hear them, and know where they are coming from.
Myself, I have always read KJ.
I can't say, however, that I am fully onboard with them in their take that ONLY the KJ is God's preserved Word -- promised in Isaiah 40:8, Psalms 12:6,7, and other places.

I AM troubled by many of the modern english translations though.
They have a way of diminishing (or outright ignoring/twisting) important truths.
I see more of this coming in the future.
Motivations for modern translations are, IMO, money and a desire to pervert the Word of God.

The King James was THE Word of God in English for a few centuries.
That is how it was nearly universally viewed.
It wasn't until the last 100 yrs-or-so that a flood of 'new and improved' translations came about.
Whether you personally wish to view the Words of the KJ as THE Word of God is up to you.
There are plenty of places (pro and con) on the internet to research it if you like.

Most people who believe the Bible do not dispute that the apostles and prophets who wrote what they did were inspired by God.
Most people who are KJ-only take this further and claim that the Greek text used to translate the KJ, the Textus Receptus, was either protected by God -- or outright inspired by God.
Some go further yet and claim that the KJ translation was inspired by God.
I have seen nobody claim this about any of the 'newer' english translations.


Isaiah 40:8: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

A person can take this how they will.
God's Word (Christ) will stand forever.
This is a truth.

Wording and sentence structure appear mildly differently in current 'Words of God' that people carry around and cite.
But again, as chucka' said, fundamental truths are essentially the same .... so far, and mostly.
For example, and oversimplifying it, they all say that Jesus rose from the dead .... not that his body was tossed in a lake. haha

So if you receive grace from reading a certain version, then have at it.

Myself, I choose to read the King James.

[Nacho]

You can always use a concordance (I use Strong's) to do some translation work for yourself. Plus you just might learn a little Greek or Hebrew along with it.

[Dinsdale]

Plus you just might learn a little Greek along with it.

Hanging out in catholic churches seems to be an excellent way for young boys to learn Greek.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The King James was THE Word of God in English for a few centuries.

Not for Catholics, it wasn't.

[poptart]

You mean Catholic congregations are actually allowed to read a Bible?

I thought they were just spoon-fed whatever line it was that the local priest had to say to them.

[battery chucka' one]

You mean Catholic congregations are actually allowed to read a Bible?

I thought they were just spoon-fed whatever line it was that the local priest had to say to them.

There's a reason mass (btw, find me where it endorses THAT one in the Bible) was always in Latin until relatively recently.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

You mean Catholic congregations are actually allowed to read a Bible?

I thought they were just spoon-fed whatever line it was that the local priest had to say to them.

There's a reason mass (btw, find me where it endorses THAT one in the Bible) was always in Latin until relatively recently.

The Mass is a man-made accretion rationalized by selective interpretation of parts of Scripture.

Kind of like that Original Sin thing...which you inaccurately claimed (in the other thread) that Jesus taught about.

[RadioFan]

You mean Catholic congregations are actually allowed to read a Bible?

It took a while, but the printing press and the Reformation pretty much cured that.

The Mass is a man-made accretion rationalized by selective interpretation of parts of Scripture.

Mike, last time I checked, the Bible has been read at Mass for a few centuries now. I think pop was just funnin, bro, given that the Catholic "Order of Mass," books aren't the "Bible," per say.

[Texas Chamber] That's a whole other topic [/Texas Chamber], though.

pop, the versus in the Catholic "Order of Mass" are Bible versus. It's just organized way in advance and there are "readers," in addition to the Priest ... i.e., religion. But the basic message is the same.

[poptart]

Kind of like that Original Sin thing...which you inaccurately claimed (in the other thread) that Jesus taught about.

You need to turn that around and realize that Jesus didn't NOT teach original sin, Mike.
You have to be absent all rational thought to not recognize original sin.

Jesus said in John 10:10, I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

If Christ came so that we can have life, that means that prior to taking Christ, a person has ..... death.
Christ came because people are spiritually dead.
Why are people spiritually dead?

God promised Adam that he would SURELY die if he left God's Word.
Man died a spiritual death at Adam.
And then look at the curse that came upon mankind in Genesis 3:16-20.
It says that man will struggle all his life and then will go back to the ground.

If there is someone who has no sin then they should avoid this fate, no?
The fact of the matter is 100% of people sin.
Therefore, unless you avoid all rational thinking, it is clear that sin is a CONDITION of mankind.

There are many examples to give, but if you look at Genesis 8, right after the flood, as Noah gives offering to God, God says that He will never again destroy man with the earth (a flood) because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.

God simply acknowledges that man's very condition is one of being evil.
It came from Genesis 3.


John 8:12, Jesus said, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Kind of like that Original Sin thing...which you inaccurately claimed (in the other thread) that Jesus taught about.

You need to turn that around and realize that Jesus didn't NOT teach original sin, Mike.
You have to be absent all rational thought to not recognize original sin.

It doesn't work that way.

Jesus was a Jew, as were his Apostles.

Judaism does not teach about Original Sin, nor do they believe in it. That is why Jesus didn't mention it.

The concept is a teaching developed/constructed/fabricated by Paul and "Church Fathers" based upon their selective interpretation of parts of Scripture. The same selective patching together of snippets of Scripture has been used to rationalize the Papacy, Purgatory, infant baptism, adult-only baptism, Confession, Confirmation, Jesus as a teetotaler, and the Rapture.

The early "Church Fathers" paved the path for creating traditions and teachings by their incredibly adept way of cherry-picking a phrase or three out of various OT books, connecting them to statements and/or events in the NT, and then either claiming directly that the "new tradition" is valid based on their "Scripture shopping" or by claiming that their "new tradition" is implied by their cherry-picked efforts.

You say that Original SIn is obvious. Got news for you - the Roman Catholics make the exact same argument, with the same strategies you employ, to rationalize their Pope.

Every denomination argues that their beliefs are obvious and that to disagree with them, you have to...what was it you said? "be absent all rational thought"?

Yeah...that's why there are so many denominations, each claiming that THEY are the ones who got it right, and each deeply, devoutly, believing in their particular interpretation of Scripture.

[poptart]

Everyone is a sinner, yes or no?

If you say no, you deny Scripture ...... well, not that that is anything new for you.

If you say yes, then tell me, at what point in a person's life do they become sinful?

[Nacho]

Wasn't Paul a jew?

Weren't Christ's deciples jews?

Wonder where/when he/they picked up that "original sin" concept.... Oh wait... He made it up or something... right?

I look forward to seeing how you respond to Pop.

[BSmack]

Everyone is a sinner, yes or no?

If you say no, you deny Scripture ...... well, not that that is anything new for you.

If you say yes, then tell me, at what point in a person's life do they become sinful?

I would posit that we become sinners when we sin, and not a moment before.

[Goober McTuber]

at what point in a person's life do they become sinful?

As soon as they meet the right girl.

[poptart]

Bri,

God said the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.

Jesus came to give us LIFE.
There must be a necessity for man to have that life, no?
Yes, because people are DEAD.
What has caused this dead condition?

Is there someone who avoids it?
Of course not, or Jesus need not have come.

100% of baby birds grow wings ... because they are birds.
100% of people sin .... because they are, ....


Folks can spin around forever and dream up reasons why original sin is not true, but they're just flat out denying the reality right in front of their face.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Everyone is a sinner, yes or no?

If you say no, you deny Scripture ...... well, not that that is anything new for you.

If you say yes, then tell me, at what point in a person's life do they become sinful?

Every sentient human is a sinner.

Sin requires intent. Until the individual grasps the concepts of right and wrong, I do not believe that they have the ability to "sin."

For example, I do not believe that an infant, fresh out of the womb is a sinner.

Even our primitive legal system -one that folks claim is based on Judeo-Christian teachings - understands this concept.

Wasn't Paul a jew?

Weren't Christ's deciples jews?

Yep, but after Christ's crucifixion, they went around teaching stuff that was considered danged heretical as far as the normal Jews were concerned.

Wonder where/when he/they picked up that "original sin" concept.... Oh wait... He made it up or something... right?

Yes, Paul made it up. Kind of like he made up a lot of his Christian theology, which was pretty ballsy for a guy who never met or followed Jesus prior to His crucifixion. Kind of convenient that he "met" Jesus in a "vision," with no one to corroborate his story.

The guy was a freaking con artist. And a good one. He got Jesus's actual Apostles to radically change their teaching so that they could increase the numbers in the faltering membership drive.

Get it through your thick skull - at no point prior to Paul did Jews teach about Original Sin, and to this very frigging day, they still do not. If it was a genuine Jewish concept, they would have not only mentioned it EXPLICITLY at some point in the OT, but it also would be showing up in their current teachings. Paul grafted the concept onto Jesus's teachings to legitimize his own practices and theology. Period.

[poptart]

Every sentient human is a sinner.

Sin requires intent. Until the individual grasps the concepts of right and wrong, I do not believe that they have the ability to "sin."

For example, I do not believe that an infant, fresh out of the womb is a sinner.

A young child may not 'sin' in a way that is observable to you, but the very fact that we know that he will sin in a way that you can observe, tells us that he is in fact infected.
If not, then there should be some people who ...... just never sin.

Further, and for just one example, Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart.

Yes, the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.

Maybe there is a 6 yr old child -- and you've never seen him 'sin'.
The perhaps one day someone is telling the Gospel to a group of young children, this 6 yr child included.
The speaker then gives the invitation for the children to receive Jesus Christ.
Do you jump in and tell the 6 yr old that he need not accept the invitation -- seeing as he is sinless, in your sight.

The child is infected, Mike.
No doubt about it.

Because people are infected with this sin nature, Christ had to come.


The Jewish people not teaching original sin is irrelevant.
The very reason for the suffering of that people throughout history is their inability to capture the essence of the Gospel.
They continued to stress legalism, and when Christ came he got right to the heart of the matter.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

pop-

Let's ask a pretty fundemental question:

What IS sin?

I'd like a specific definition and how we know an action/though is sinful, not just the incredibly and deliberately vague "falling short of God's glory."

Paul chided the Jews for their "legalism," but that's precisely what modern Christians do, in an even more picky way (cherry-picking portions of OT Law that they want considered "sins" but then ignoring the rest).

Should we only consider actions defined by JESUS as wrong to be "sin?" Do we let PAUL tell us ? Is there a list to follow? And if so, how in the heck does following the "Christian" list of what is and isn't "sinful" differ from the alleged "legalism" of the Jews?

The Jewish people not teaching original sin is irrelevant.
The very reason for the suffering of that people throughout history is their inability to capture the essence of the Gospel.

The Jewish non-teaching of Original Sin is relevant, as it proves that the concept is a Christian invention and not a long-standing theological understanding backed by OT Scripture.

And as for the argument that the entire reason for the suffering of the Jewish people - from the OT accounts, their persecution by Europeans (during the Plague, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.) - is that they were "unable to capture the essence of the Gospel," that is just heinous. You're saying that they brought it all on themselves...because they're being punished by God for not accepting Jesus. Nice.

[poptart]

Separation from God is sin.

The Old Testament teaches original sin from the start.

Man, having left God's Word, was informed about the curse which resulted.
Genesis 3:16-20: paraphrasing -- The very ground is cursed, in sorrow shall you eat, and thorns and thistles it will bring you.
You will have sorrow, die, and then return to the ground from where you came.

I already referenced Genesis 8:12, God saying that man's heart is evil from his youth.
Job 14:4 -- (speaking of man's birth) A clean man can not come out from what is a dirty vessel
Job 25:4 -- same as previous Job verse
Psalms 51:5 -- I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me
Psalms 58:3 -- The wicked are estranged from the womb, going astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies

Mike, anyone not having received Jesus Christ is within the curse of Genesis 3:16-20, not just the Jews who have rejected Christ, who IS God's Covenant.
The history of Israel as shown in the Old Testament is one in which they repeatedly lost hold of God's Covenant, and suffered hardship as a result.

Because apart from God, man can do NOTHING.
Read Genesis 3 quietly and understand why.

David said he meditated on God day and night.
Jesus told us He is the vine and that apart from Him we can do NOTHING.

Apart from Christ, who is the ONLY WAY to come to the Father, sin waits at our door.

[RumpleForeskin]

Here you go, Pops

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him,
"Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In
other words, we can now do what you did in the
'beginning'.

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well, " says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form
it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting, show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to
mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

I don't care if I'm what you consider a 'resident' tard. I am going to put in my two cents on this one.

There is a huge difference between somebody translating 'poco' to be little, wee, tiny, or small, and somebody just deciding that the word offends them and, therefore, shouldn't be in the Bible at all.

How many messages can you think that are left out of the NASB or NIV that were in the KJV Bible? I know that, rarely, the entire translation is different. But, again, it's just one or two verses. The story of the rich young man is still the story of a rich young man. Christ instructs him to do the same thing in all translations, whether it's to sell all he owns and give the money to the poor or to retail his assets and reallocate the profit to the economically challenged. It's not as if the mainstream translations just decide that the message is omittable.

That is all. If either Dio or Pop can answer better for you, I hope they do.

BCO,
I read once that there are thousands of versions of the NT and many versions have significant differences. With all those versions there is bound to be some discrepencies, but I agree the overall message is the same.

What we Jews have a problem with is in the translation of the Torah from Hebrew. The way we keep the message nearly identical for thousands of years is that Torahs are copied by hand. Anyway, I've been down this road with pop before and he poo-poo's the arguement, because he has to. I'll give you one example anyway, just so you know where I'm coming from. Isaiah 7:14 is a passage that is used as proof of the "virgin" birth.

Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel

An accurate Hebrew translation does not support the NT translation.

"Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

The Hebrew word "ha'alma" means "the young woman" and exists in other areas of the Torah, but only in Isaiah 7:14 is it translated to mean "virgin." One little word, world of difference.

MtLR,
You are correct about the "original sin" concept with regards to the Jews. We believe man has the freedom of choice and the Torah teaches us how to repent and reconcile with God.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Separation from God is sin.

Couldja be a little more vague?

What specifically constitutes "separation from God?"

What specific actions on the part of individuals constitutes "sin?" Just saying "any act that separates us from God" is so vague and meaningless as to be useless.

The Old Testament teaches original sin from the start.

Only if you choose to cherry-pick and selectively interpret quotes from the Old (and, for other stuff, New) Testament.

Which is precisely the SAME thing that Roman Catholics do to rationalize all the stuff that they claim is legit, but with which thumpers like you have issues. There are many Catholic "apologetics" sites that do the exact same cherry-picking and selective interpretation to justify the Papacy, the Mass, Confession, Confirmation, infant baptism, intercession of the saints, Purgatory, etc.

You refuse to see what is frigging obvious - that you and the other thumpers pick at the splinter of "selective Scripture hunting" in the RCC's "eye" and miss the "plank" of it in your own. You do the same danged thing.

Mike, anyone not having received Jesus Christ is within the curse of Genesis 3:16-20, not just the Jews who have rejected Christ, who IS God's Covenant.

Ummm...but you used their collective rejection of Christ as a sort of "they brought dat shit on theyselves" horsecrap to explain what the Jews have gone through in the last couple of thousand years (often at the hands of Christians).

THAT is sick.

The history of Israel as shown in the Old Testament is one in which they repeatedly lost hold of God's Covenant, and suffered hardship as a result.

That's one of those self-fulfilling prophecy idiocies that the Bible is full of and that Christers perpetuate - if "our side" wins, it wasn't because of superior strategy, better resources, or good luck, it was "because God favored us," while our side "losing" (or suffering) isn't due to poor planning, poor leadership, disease, or the other side being nasty/better led or supplied, it's because "God is punishing us." It's a freaking ethnic/cultural/historical version of NFL players thanking God for their winning a game. It's a mentality of helplessness. And it's horseshit used by religious folk to keep control of the masses.

[battery chucka' one]

I don't care if I'm what you consider a 'resident' tard. I am going to put in my two cents on this one.

There is a huge difference between somebody translating 'poco' to be little, wee, tiny, or small, and somebody just deciding that the word offends them and, therefore, shouldn't be in the Bible at all.

How many messages can you think that are left out of the NASB or NIV that were in the KJV Bible? I know that, rarely, the entire translation is different. But, again, it's just one or two verses. The story of the rich young man is still the story of a rich young man. Christ instructs him to do the same thing in all translations, whether it's to sell all he owns and give the money to the poor or to retail his assets and reallocate the profit to the economically challenged. It's not as if the mainstream translations just decide that the message is omittable.

That is all. If either Dio or Pop can answer better for you, I hope they do.

BCO,
I read once that there are thousands of versions of the NT and many versions have significant differences. With all those versions there is bound to be some discrepencies, but I agree the overall message is the same.

What we Jews have a problem with is in the translation of the Torah from Hebrew. The way we keep the message nearly identical for thousands of years is that Torahs are copied by hand. Anyway, I've been down this road with pop before and he poo-poo's the arguement, because he has to. I'll give you one example anyway, just so you know where I'm coming from. Isaiah 7:14 is a passage that is used as proof of the "virgin" birth.

Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel

An accurate Hebrew translation does not support the NT translation.

"Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

The Hebrew word "ha'alma" means "the young woman" and exists in other areas of the Torah, but only in Isaiah 7:14 is it translated to mean "virgin." One little word, world of difference.

MtLR,
You are correct about the "original sin" concept with regards to the Jews. We believe man has the freedom of choice and the Torah teaches us how to repent and reconcile with God.

I have more to discuss with regards to the original sin concept, but will return to that. Let's leave it, for now, at the idea that the OT really doesn't afford for salvation of man. Day of atonement only lasted until you sinned again. But, I'll get back to that later.

Second, as per Isaiah 7:14, I looked up the word in my lexical aids to the Old Testament and, per discussion of the word 'almah', it says right off the bat that it is probably the most controversial word in the entire OT because of its use in Isa. 7:14 and as connection with the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Then, it goes on to explain further for the next two pages (most explanations take around five lines to discuss). Therefore, I'll be reading this and get back to you.

Yes, many versions of the NT are out there. However, that doesn't mean that many versions are accepted. For every one that is accepted, there's a handful put out by Thomas Jefferson and such that is a hatchet job. These never really catch on nor survive. Heck, in the 90's, I remember a version that was released that omitted anything that was deemed inappropriate for children to read. I bet Judges was about a page and a half in length. But I digress, many versions released, yes, but only really one message that is acceptable. God is still in control over what garners the most mainstream acceptance. Ya' know?

[battery chucka' one]

Separation from God is sin.

Couldja be a little more vague?

What specifically constitutes "separation from God?"

What specific actions on the part of individuals constitutes "sin?" Just saying "any act that separates us from God" is so vague and meaningless as to be useless.

The Old Testament teaches original sin from the start.

Only if you choose to cherry-pick and selectively interpret quotes from the Old (and, for other stuff, New) Testament.

Which is precisely the SAME thing that Roman Catholics do to rationalize all the stuff that they claim is legit, but with which thumpers like you have issues. There are many Catholic "apologetics" sites that do the exact same cherry-picking and selective interpretation to justify the Papacy, the Mass, Confession, Confirmation, infant baptism, intercession of the saints, Purgatory, etc.

You refuse to see what is frigging obvious - that you and the other thumpers pick at the splinter of "selective Scripture hunting" in the RCC's "eye" and miss the "plank" of it in your own. You do the same danged thing.

Mike, anyone not having received Jesus Christ is within the curse of Genesis 3:16-20, not just the Jews who have rejected Christ, who IS God's Covenant.

Ummm...but you used their collective rejection of Christ as a sort of "they brought dat shit on theyselves" horsecrap to explain what the Jews have gone through in the last couple of thousand years (often at the hands of Christians).

THAT is sick.

The history of Israel as shown in the Old Testament is one in which they repeatedly lost hold of God's Covenant, and suffered hardship as a result.

That's one of those self-fulfilling prophecy idiocies that the Bible is full of and that Christers perpetuate - if "our side" wins, it wasn't because of superior strategy, better resources, or good luck, it was "because God favored us," while our side "losing" (or suffering) isn't due to poor planning, poor leadership, disease, or the other side being nasty/better led or supplied, it's because "God is punishing us." It's a freaking ethnic/cultural/historical version of NFL players thanking God for their winning a game. It's a mentality of helplessness. And it's horseshit used by religious folk to keep control of the masses.

Okay, it's pretty obvious that you don't have much perspective on the Bible.

The OT was there for several reasons. The first is to set the table for Christ's arrival. The second is to show us that we all need Him. The Jewish people were the examples, showing how God allowed us (man) every opportunity to keep the Abrahamic covenant upon our own power. All through the OT, they found themselves to be wanting (look up Molech, Baal, and Asheroth if you don't believe me. Also, take a look at how Solomon's reign ended.). It was all part of God's plan. He knew we couldn't do it on our own. Therefore, He needed to present Himself as the perfect sacrifice upon which all sin could be lain...and upon which God's wrath could be enacted. Another reason for the OT was, of course, for historical documentation.

God was supposed to rule the Jews as their King. They demanded one of their own. Samuel said that was a bad idea. They insisted. Four kings of Judah were good and walked with God (Asa, Jehosophat, Hezekiel, and Josiah). The North kingdom couldn't muster a single king whom God found worthy. However, God is not yet done with the descendants of abraham, isaac, and jacob. He hasn't finished all His business with them. A week of Daniel remains. He still looks upon them as 'special'. The devil still hates that people more than any other in the history of the world. He's tried to destroy them. From them sprang my Savior. God loves them dearly. He loves me too. I'm a Christian. I'm saved by Grace. But they hold a truly exceptional spot in His heart, as underserving as they've constantly proven themselves to be. But then, I'm the most undeserving of all. And He still loves me. :) I've not done a single thing to earn my salvation. I just accepted the gift extended to all. And I'm saved.

[poptart]

It's pretty funny, Rumps!

Couldja be a little more vague?

What specifically constitutes "separation from God?"

What specific actions on the part of individuals constitutes "sin?" Just saying "any act that separates us from God" is so vague and meaningless as to be useless.

Actually I've explained it a number of times, Mike.
Perhaps it's hard to wrap your brain around it because ....

- of the simplicity of it
- you've been conditioned through previous 'Christian thinking' to think of a sin in a certain manner

I'll put it to you again.

God tells us about man's sin problem from the beginning of Scripture.

Man left God's Word, and as promised, man died a spiritual death.
God informed man (Genesis 3:16-20) that because of this event, a curse had come to him.

The very ground is cursed, in sorrow shall you eat, and thorns and thistles it will bring you.
You will have sorrow, die, and then return to the ground from where you came.

Understanding that everything man does or has comes from the ground, you can see the inescapable predicament that has come upon man.
Man is separated from God -- and within a curse.
This itself is sin.

Of course these people who are apart from God will exhibit sin 'actions,' which is what you are conditioned to regard sin as, and what you want to define.
But the actions themselves are not the issue.
It is the overall condition that man is in which is the issue.

So how does man get out of his sin problem?
Take the Christ, of course.
Look at Ephesians 1:3,4.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

Those who take Christ are seen by God as being holy and without blame (sinless, of course) before Him.
Those who do not take the Christ remain in the curse of Genesis 3:16-20.

Either, or.

There is nothing 'sick' about explaining the plight of the Jews (or anyone else) with an understanding of what it means to take or refuse the Christ.
God's Covenant is in Christ now, and nowhere else.
You either get in the ark or you get flooded and die.
You either paint the blood on the doorpost or you die.


Twizzler,

I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion about 'translation' and Isaiah 7:14.
Of course I disagree with you about it and will just make a few quick points.

1. The translators translated Isaiah 7:14, before Jesus was born and before there was any reason to 'mistranslate' the Hebrew word, and the word though, not exclusively meaning 'virgin' was understood by the context to mean 'virgin'.

2. It says there in Isaiah 7:14 that the Lord will give a sign.
And the GREAT sign from God is, ......

> drum roll <

A young woman will give birth.
Wowz .... good one, God.
Got any more dazzling "signs" you wanna show us??

It's just silly.
The denial that this is about a virgin is right in line with the denial about Genesis 3:15 being about the Christ.
Sure, right after the most tragic event in the history of mankind(Genesis 3:1-6), God is talking about how men and snakes will forever be enemies. lolz

3. Going a bit further in Isaiah (9:5,6) we see this about the Child coming from the virgin .....

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Let me get this straight:

"Sin" is a separation from God, which has been our individually unearned curse, handed down as an almost-eternal legacy, due to the alleged actions of two specific human ancestors in a magical garden.

So, every single human infant, despite the fact that their little neurons haven't quite hammered out pathways to meaningfully interpret their surroundings, let alone act with evil intent, is condemned to eternal perdition and the flames of hell, because two lunkheads generations ago ate a forbidden apple.

And that "just" curse stands until they can actually learn all about Jebus and make the meaningful, reflective, ADULT decision to accept Christ and be "saved."

Let's just hope that nothing fatal happens between death and baptism, or you're screwed. Pretty much for eternity.

Yeah, that seems eminently fair.

That's the kind of idiotic logic that forced certain denominations (e.g., Roman Catholics, Anglicans) to advocate infant baptism, since they wanted to make sure that kids didn't get "hellfired" if they died prior to adult baptism, and to rationalize a place called Limbo (can't send unbaptised babies to Heaven, what with all that Original Sin besmirching them, but it seems so unfair to damn them to Hell...).

Even our fallible legal system, written by limited, selfish, spiteful, mortal creatures, recognizes that condemning people for the sins of their ancestors is morally wrong and that individuals must be mentally capable and responsible enough to comprehend good and evil to be held responsible for a crime (hence our laws requiring evaluation of mental competence prior to trials). It makes no sense that we fallible, "evil" critters would be MORE just and merciful regarding concepts like hereditary guilt and the punishment of the mentally/morally incompetent or immature.

Look, the whole Original Sin horseshit was fabricated by Paul and his followers for one frigging reason - to drum up membership.

The Jews weren't signing up to join Jesus's little Jewish offshoot fast enough, so Paul convinced the Apostles to drop the Mosaic dietary requirements and circumcision (the latter being a deal-breaker to many Gentiles) to get in the "club."

Membership was still not spiking fast enough, so Paul created this insane premise that no matter how well one followed the Mosaic Laws (which, Jesus himself said shouldn't be altered or abolished), it would never be good enough, since every freaking human on the planet was -through no direct fault of their own- cursed, and..

...by gum, by gosh, by golly, only by JOINING OUR CLUB can that curse be removed!

Pretty darned convenient, wouldn't you say?

Toss in the dues for joining the club (tithing or just giving up your earthly possessions and relying on God), and Paul's little scam has been tweaked and used, to smashing success, by pretty much every group calling themselves a "church" (Roman Catholic Church all the way to Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, et al.).

[battery chucka' one]

Let me get this straight:

"Sin" is a separation from God, which has been our individually unearned curse, handed down as an almost-eternal legacy, due to the alleged actions of two specific human ancestors in a magical garden.

Yes. Since that day, we are now all born as sinners whose natural tendency it is to be sinful.

So, every single human infant, despite the fact that their little neurons haven't quite hammered out pathways to meaningfully interpret their surroundings, let alone act with evil intent, is condemned to eternal perdition and the flames of hell, because two lunkheads generations ago ate a forbidden apple.

It wasn't (nor does it say anywhere) that it was an apple. It was a fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There's something to be said for 'age of accountability', before which, they are looked at as 'innocents' (for want of a better term). However, babies are inherently selfish and very 'me-oriented'.

And that "just" curse stands until they can actually learn all about Jebus and make the meaningful, reflective, ADULT decision to accept Christ and be "saved."

Let's just hope that nothing fatal happens between death and baptism, or you're screwed. Pretty much for eternity.

Baptism isn't a way to salvation. It is a symbol of choosing Christ as your savior. We can be saved without baptism or damned with. It's not the salvation in itself. Once we are old enough to make the choice, that's when we need to choose Him.

Yeah, that seems eminently fair.

Fairness is God saying 'screw you' to the entire world and setting it on fire. Fairness is eternal damnation for one single sin. We're not talking fair here. If you want to talk fairness, perhaps you should go back to kindergarden. Check out the song "Justice' by Atomic Opera. They hit the nail on the head with the lyrics.

That's the kind of idiotic logic that forced certain denominations (e.g., Roman Catholics, Anglicans) to advocate infant baptism, since they wanted to make sure that kids didn't get "hellfired" if they died prior to adult baptism, and to rationalize a place called Limbo (can't send unbaptised babies to Heaven, what with all that Original Sin besmirching them, but it seems so unfair to damn them to Hell...).

Legalistic mumbo jumbo. Means nothing but parents who think their kids are covered. Nothing here.

Even our fallible legal system, written by limited, selfish, spiteful, mortal creatures, recognizes that condemning people for the sins of their ancestors is morally wrong and that individuals must be mentally capable and responsible enough to comprehend good and evil to be held responsible for a crime (hence our laws requiring evaluation of mental competence prior to trials). It makes no sense that we fallible, "evil" critters would be MORE just and merciful regarding concepts like hereditary guilt and the punishment of the mentally/morally incompetent or immature.

Look, the whole Original Sin horseshit was fabricated by Paul and his followers for one frigging reason - to drum up membership.

The Jews weren't signing up to join Jesus's little Jewish offshoot fast enough, so Paul convinced the Apostles to drop the Mosaic dietary requirements and circumcision (the latter being a deal-breaker to many Gentiles) to get in the "club."

Membership was still not spiking fast enough, so Paul created this insane premise that no matter how well one followed the Mosaic Laws (which, Jesus himself said shouldn't be altered or abolished), it would never be good enough, since every freaking human on the planet was -through no direct fault of their own- cursed, and..

...by gum, by gosh, by golly, only by JOINING OUR CLUB can that curse be removed!

Pretty darned convenient, wouldn't you say?

Toss in the dues for joining the club (tithing or just giving up your earthly possessions and relying on God), and Paul's little scam has been tweaked and used, to smashing success, by pretty much every group calling themselves a "church" (Roman Catholic Church all the way to Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, et al.).

[BSmack]

Check out the song "Justice' by Atomic Opera. They hit the nail on the head with the lyrics.

Atomic Opera???

When are they going to release a follow up to "Tarp Size Panties"?

[battery chucka' one]

Check out the song "Justice' by Atomic Opera. They hit the nail on the head with the lyrics.

Atomic Opera???

When are they going to release a follow up to "Tarp Size Panties"?

Ummmm.....no.

Here's the video, should you desire.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9htsKZGMRnI

They're a Christian tinged band from Texas.

I will never ask for justice. The last thing I want in the world is for God to be just with me and give me what I deserve. He's merciful and uses grace with me. Both, imho, fly in the face of what man deems to be 'justice'. While I understand that some refer to God as just, I feel that this is tempered with His love. George Carlin's a fool. God is great.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

It wasn't (nor does it say anywhere) that it was an apple. It was a fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There's something to be said for 'age of accountability', before which, they are looked at as 'innocents' (for want of a better term). However, babies are inherently selfish and very 'me-oriented'.

It's called "self-preservation," lunkhead, and even animals practice it.

Fairness is God saying 'screw you' to the entire world and setting it on fire.

Well, He (according to the Noah myth) tried DROWNING pretty much every living person on the planet...

And why, by the way, are animals and plants allegedly ALSO being punished for what Adam and Eve allegedly did? Isn't the thumper claim that there was no death (meaning no disease or predation) until Adam and Eve screwed up?

Never mind the fact that the geological record proves that animals and plants were dying (from disease, predation, accidents, etc.) long before our species ever set foot on the planet, proving the whole "Adam and Eve brought death" claim is utter and complete horsecrap.

Fairness is eternal damnation for one single sin.

So...Jesus tells us that when someone wrongs us, that WE must forgive seventy times seven times, to turn the other cheek, etc., but God gets to condemn each and every human being in perpetuity because of two individuals hundreds or thousands or generations ago.

We're not talking fair here.

No. we're taking hypocrisy, capriciousness, and inconsistency...from a deity whose followers insist that he is all-good, all-loving, etc.

If you want to talk fairness, perhaps you should go back to kindergarden.

If you want to talk mercy and consistency, perhaps we should avoid the Bible.

[poptart]

Let me get this straight:

"Sin" is a separation from God, which has been our individually unearned curse, handed down as an almost-eternal legacy, due to the alleged actions of two specific human ancestors in a magical garden.

So, every single human infant, despite the fact that their little neurons haven't quite hammered out pathways to meaningfully interpret their surroundings, let alone act with evil intent, is condemned to eternal perdition and the flames of hell, because two lunkheads generations ago ate a forbidden apple.

That's sort of it, yes.
Unless you don't believe the Bible to be true.
I know where you stand.

Regarding infants, a couple of points.

- The Bible tells us over and over that our God is a JUST God.
Whatever happens to the soul of a dead infant is not up to ME, it's up to our God, who is just.
I'm saying that Scripturally, I don't see how they cross over to life.
But maybe they do, I dunno.
There is no such thing as an 'age of accountability' given in the Bible.
Believe on it as you will.
Myself, I'm not hung up on it.
God is just.
I leave it at that.

- The Bible shows us that God knew, and prepared things for, believers, before the foundation of the earth.
His method of 'calling back His children to Him' is through Jesus Christ.
Those who take the Christ are His children.
Those who do not, are not.
So I don't lament terribly over those souls who don't take the Christ -- to the bottom line, they just are not God's children.
I instead look for those people (disciples) who ARE appointed for salvation.
It's a constructive course of action to take.

God's eyes to see poeple are different than our eyes.
And everything is HIS creation, not ours.
So the 'rules' might not seem just to me?
You know the golden rule, Mike.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

God's eyes to see poeple are different than our eyes.
And everything is HIS creation, not ours.
So the 'rules' might not seem just to me?
You know the golden rule, Mike.

Actually, I chalk up the bulk of the inconsistencies attributed to God's behaviors to the imperfect understanding of His nature by those recording them. As we've mentioned earlier, many of those trusted to deliver and explain His messages haven't done a particularly good job.

[Nacho]

Mike,

Can you enlighten the rest of us as to what the real truth is since we seem to be unable to decern it for ourselves...

While you are at it maybe you can explain why Paul "the Con Man" allowed himself to be martyred for a bunch of stuff he made up....

[Mike the Lab Rat]

While you are at it maybe you can explain why Paul "the Con Man" allowed himself to be martyred for a bunch of stuff he made up....

Oh, so a willingness to die for your religious beliefs validates their claims of truth?

Jim Jones & his People's Temple cult?
Heaven's Gate?
Order of the Solar Temple?
Various non-Christians who died at the hands of Christians (e.g. during Crusades and the Inquisition) rather than accept Christ?

You've got to do better than that.

[battery chucka' one]

Ya' know, Mike, I've seen your comments on here and think that to say anything further would be to cast pearls before swine.

I pray you accept Christ's salvation one day, I really do (perhaps you have and YOU don't know it yet). But, however, anything further spoken to you would be wasted breath. God knows if you've accepted His grace. I'd say that I don't consider you to be a Christian, but He knows the truth. I'll leave it up to Him.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Show mercy, BCO. It's what He would expect of you.

[poptart]

Mike, the fundamental difference between Paul and those cult-followers you listed is that those people believed what they were dying for.

Paul, on the other hand, chose to die for something which he would have known to be false.


You understand that you've got a serious problem there.