24 Feb 17
Originally posted by leunammiGood post leunammi.
Marshall, Well you just opened up a can of worms. Obviously, speaking for myself I have many versions. The KJV which some people these days abhor, is probably the most robust and one of the higher on the reading scale than most of the newer modern day translations which in my opinion are dumbed down. Some folks, even some here in this forum view the KJV ...[text shortened]... the internet and elsewhere it can become confusing. IMO, start with the KJV and go from there.
I would go a step further though and say the KJV is without error.
24 Feb 17
Originally posted by SuzianneYou're full of surprises Suzianne.
I'm in this exact same boat. I use the KJV exclusively. I also feel that some of the newer versions seem 'dumbed-down'.
For online use, I use Blue Letter Bible. It lets you set any of 20 translations as default. And it also has cross-referencing and interlinear use as well as commentaries.
http://www.blueletterbible.org
24 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonshipEnough of this Calvinism, the word of God cannot be made subject to the doctrines of mere men!you yourself have admitted that its a direct quotation from Joel 2:32, have you not? Are you now changing your mind?
Paul did not stop writing Greek and write verse 13 in Hebrew. It seems that you are looking over the apostle's shoulder and wanting to correct what he did write, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, you can ...[text shortened]... ho are You, Lord ? And He said I am Jesus, whom you persecute." (Acts 9:5) [/quote][/b]
24 Feb 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeGood question Ghost. Besides extensive personal experience with, use and application of the scriptures, there's a little matter concerning the doctrine of preservation.
How do you figure that Joe?
It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series of 66 books written by 40 men inspired by God over a 1500 year period of time, and the logical conclusion that if there be any such thing it would necessitate that their preservation be kept intact, defies explanation to an unbeliever.
In fact, none of that makes any sense to you at all since it's too far outside the realm of possibility. After all there is no God. We just happen to be here without any certain reason for existence.
That last sentence is sarcasm. 😉
24 Feb 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStill missing the point.
Tell the forum what the original verse actually says at Joel 2:32. We are not interested in your exegesis nor you pagan doctrines, we are interested in what the Bible actually says.
"Who cares what it means? What does it say?"
Another literalist.
24 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwAs an unbeliever, I place no divine value in The Bible. But I understand that many people do and I have no qualms with that in and of itself.
It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series of 66 books written by 40 men inspired by God over a 1500 year period of time, and the logical conclusion that if there be any such thing it would necessitate that their preservation be kept intact, defies explanation to an unbeliever.
In any case, if I were to believe a book was divinely inspired, why wouldn't I want it preserved? If I were to believe that it was the word of God, I would want it to be as preserved as possible. The means of how the book itself came to be compiled by man would be secondary to the content, which would be the word of God.
Just my two cents on this bit.
24 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwIf man can be inspired to write the words down, other men can be inspired to preserve it.
Good question Ghost. Besides extensive personal experience with, use and application of the scriptures, there's a little matter concerning the doctrine of preservation.
It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series ...[text shortened]... happen to be here without any certain reason for existence.
That last sentence is sarcasm. 😉
24 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwYou say sarcasm, I say Freudian slip.
Good question Ghost. Besides extensive personal experience with, use and application of the scriptures, there's a little matter concerning the doctrine of preservation.
It's a simple, yet not simplistic concept that as an atheist you, by default, must deny exists. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that the whole idea of there being a series ...[text shortened]... happen to be here without any certain reason for existence.
That last sentence is sarcasm. 😉
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Enough of this Calvinism, the word of God cannot be made subject to the doctrines of mere men!
In the Greek text of Romans 10:13 could you please indicate which part is "the doctrines of mere men" ?
transliterated below
Pas gar hos an epikalesetai to anoma Kyriou sothesetai.
Nine words written by the Apostle Paul there.
Which words are the "doctrines of mere men" ?
Originally posted by sonshipI am not referring to the Greek text, I am referring to your Calvinism. You were telling us whether its a direct quotation from Joel 2:32, were you not?Enough of this Calvinism, the word of God cannot be made subject to the doctrines of mere men!
In the Greek text of [b]Romans 10:13 could you please indicate which part is "the doctrines of mere men" ?
transliterated below
Pas gar hos an epikalesetai to anoma Kyriou sothesetai.
Nine words written by the Apostle Paul there.
Which words are the "doctrines of mere men" ?[/b]