But with the subject of tithing,...

[dmp]

I will refrain from pointing out your obvious misunderstandings and errors and ask for verse references.

Obvious misundrestanding?? Brother, you sir seem to be a Pharasee. Seriously - you're blinded by your arrogance and a feeling of wanting to be 'exclusive.' Jeff and EightBall Pwn3d you SEVERAL times in this thread, but YOU HAVE CHOSEN to keep yourself from LEARNING. May GOD have mercy on you.

 

[flaja]

Although I thought it was clear from my post, all of those verses are the end of Phillipians 2:5 through Phillipians 2:6.

And I'm very interested to see where my "obvious misunderstandings and errors" are.

What about the Amplified Col. 2:9 which uses the term deity? Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary ©1967 defines Godhead as divine nature or essence : Divinity. The nature of God especially as existing in three persons. The same dictionary defines deity as the rank or essential nature of a god or supreme being. Deity is further defined as a god, or goddess and as one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful. According to Webster deity could mean Zeus, or Diana and carries no denotation of the Christian Trinity.

After Constantine gained control of the whole Roman Empire the still pagan Senate erected a triumphal arch in his honor. The arch was inscribed so as to give thanks to the deity for Constantine’s authority. Constantine lived and died as an Arian- believing that Jesus was a created being. The AKJ’s Godhead is a more precise term than deity is. The term Godhead has never been applied to anyone other than The Lord God of Israel. Deity is a generic term and the Amplified Bible could be talking about any number of false gods.

Micah 5:2
AKJ: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

New Living Translation: But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village among all the people of Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past.

The NLT flat says that Jesus has origins- meaning He is not eternal and thus cannot be God.

Matthew 1:25
AKJ: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Holman Christian Standard: But did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.

The Holman does not identify Jesus as Mary’s firstborn- leaving open the possibility that Jesus was not born of a virgin and thus could have both a human mother and a human father.

So which verses are correct- Phillipians 2:5-6 or these other verses that defy Christian doctrine?

 

[5stringJeff]

What about the Amplified Col. 2:9 ...
Deity is a generic term and the Amplified Bible could be talking about any number of false gods...

Micah 5:2...
The NLT flat says that Jesus has origins- meaning He is not eternal and thus cannot be God...

Matthew 1:25...
The Holman does not identify Jesus as Mary’s firstborn- leaving open the possibility that Jesus was not born of a virgin and thus could have both a human mother and a human father...

So which verses are correct- Phillipians 2:5-6 or these other verses that defy Christian doctrine?

I already answered these very same questions 14 posts ago. The answers are the same: none of these Bibles deny any Christian doctrines.

It seems as though you have fallen for the very thing Paul warned us about in Collosians 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoile you through Philosophie and vaine deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (1611, just for you) The idea that the 1611 KJV is somehow inspired or the only acceptable English Bible is a fallacy, plain and simple.

 

[flaja]

I already answered these very same questions 14 posts ago. The answers are the same: none of these Bibles deny any Christian doctrines.

And your eyes are just as closed and your heart just as hard now as then.

 

[5stringJeff]

And your eyes are just as closed and your heart just as hard now as then.

I'll let God work on my heart, thanks so much, though I have yet to see which Biblical doctrine I somehow lack. You've also done little (read: nothing) to open my eyes as to why the 1611 KJV is the only correct English version of the Bible. I wonder, though: in your KJV-only world, is there a divinely sanctioned Spanish translation of the Bible? Chinese? Finnish? Russian? How about all the far-flung tribes in Africa and South America? Are the Wycliffe translations acceptable for them to use? Or are they all destined for hellfire since they don't use a translation authorized by King James?

 

[flaja]

I'll let God work on my heart, thanks so much, though I have yet to see which Biblical doctrine I somehow lack. You've also done little (read: nothing) to open my eyes as to why the 1611 KJV is the only correct English version of the Bible. I wonder, though: in your KJV-only world, is there a divinely sanctioned Spanish translation of the Bible? Chinese? Finnish? Russian? How about all the far-flung tribes in Africa and South America? Are the Wycliffe translations acceptable for them to use? Or are they all destined for hellfire since they don't use a translation authorized by King James?

By accepting as valid Bible translations that contradict themselves and run counter to Christian doctrine you are doubting the Word of God. By refusing to insist that what you accept as Scripture be complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible (which you do by relying on multiple translations meaning you don’t accept any single one as complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible) you are denying God the power to provide you with a complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of His Word. In this regard you reject Christianity.

 

[Eightball]

And your eyes are just as closed and your heart just as hard now as then.

Jesus spoke about spiritual pride, as well as the many apostles.......

Do you not see, how you are addressing those that also believe in Christ? You are being very judgemental, and also telling folks that they are wrong and you are right. Yes, you are doing this towards fellow Christians.

That little speck that you see in all of our eyes, but yours, is exactly what Jesus talked about. He said the one that sees so much fault in other bretheren often has a massive log in their own eye......Metaphorically speaking.

 

[flaja]

Jesus spoke about spiritual pride, as well as the many apostles.......

Do you not see, how you are addressing those that also believe in Christ? You are being very judgemental, and also telling folks that they are wrong and you are right. Yes, you are doing this towards fellow Christians.

That little speck that you see in all of our eyes, but yours, is exactly what Jesus talked about. He said the one that sees so much fault in other bretheren often has a massive log in their own eye......Metaphorically speaking.

You reject legitimate Christian doctrine by accepting incorrect translations of the Bible and you have the gall to criticize me for offering you correction? When you are perfect in your doctrine, you will be entitled to complain about the doctrine I follow. In the meantime the criticism of the followers of Satan have no effect on me.

You reject God at the same time you slander me. But note Psalm 50:16-21 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

 

[MissileMan]

You reject legitimate Christian doctrine by accepting incorrect translations of the Bible and you have the gall to criticize me for offering you correction? When you are perfect in your doctrine, you will be entitled to complain about the doctrine I follow. In the meantime the criticism of the followers of Satan have no effect on me.

You reject God at the same time you slander me. But note Psalm 50:16-21 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

On what basis do you declare your translation of the Bible superior to any other?

 

[5stringJeff]

You reject legitimate Christian doctrine by accepting incorrect translations of the Bible and you have the gall to criticize me for offering you correction? When you are perfect in your doctrine, you will be entitled to complain about the doctrine I follow. In the meantime the criticism of the followers of Satan have no effect on me.

You reject God at the same time you slander me. But note Psalm 50:16-21 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

Hold on, high speed. You aren't even quoting the 1611 version of the KJV!!!

Here's the 1611 version of the passage you just highlighted. Note the differences in bold red text:
"But vnto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to doe, to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Couenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behinde thee. When thou sawest a thiefe, then thou consentedst with him, and hast bene partaker with adulterers. Thou giuest thy mouth to euill, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine owne mothers sonne. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence: thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thy selfe: but I will reproue thee, and set them in order before thine eyes."

So, you who claim that the 1611 translators were inspired, you don't even use their translation!

 

[5stringJeff]

By accepting as valid Bible translations that contradict themselves and run counter to Christian doctrine you are doubting the Word of God. By refusing to insist that what you accept as Scripture be complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible (which you do by relying on multiple translations meaning you don’t accept any single one as complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible) you are denying God the power to provide you with a complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of His Word. In this regard you reject Christianity.

I accept the Word of God to be complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible in its original text. I also accept the reality that translations of the same text may be done using different methods, resulting in slightly different wordings in the translations without loss of meaning. I also recognize, as you fail to, that translators are not inspired by God, nor is there a reason for them to be.

 

[flaja]

On what basis do you declare your translation of the Bible superior to any other?

The personal faith of the translators.

The validity of the manuscript copies used.

The consistency of the doctrine taught.

The accuracy of the translation, i.e. are the original words translated into English correctly.

The hostility, deceit and disingenuous of the people who advocate modern translations.

I grew up using only the AKJ and except for a couple of translations I had to buy for a few college courses and some software packages, I have never owned a non-AKJ Bible. But, I did not become King James Only until after I started reading what modern Bible advocates say about it. When you complain about things such as the readability and “difficult” vocabulary and archaic vocabulary of the AKJ I know that you are really complaining about the AKJ itself because these complaints cannot be supported by the facts. This tells me that your real objection is to the doctrine contained in the AKJ. No one can read a modern translation simply because it is easier to read. If you read a modern translation it is because you have doubts about legitimate Christian doctrine.

 

[flaja]

Hold on, high speed. You aren't even quoting the 1611 version of the KJV!!!

Here's the 1611 version of the passage you just highlighted. Note the differences in bold red text:
"But vnto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to doe, to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Couenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behinde thee. When thou sawest a thiefe, then thou consentedst with him, and hast bene partaker with adulterers. Thou giuest thy mouth to euill, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine owne mothers sonne. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence: thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thy selfe: but I will reproue thee, and set them in order before thine eyes."

So, you who claim that the 1611 translators were inspired, you don't even use their translation!

What an absolute idiot you must be to think that modernization of things like spelling negates the content of the AKJ. Claiming there are multiple versions of the AKJ is the last line of defense of sinners, like you, who are going straight to Hell.

 

[MissileMan]

The accuracy of the translation, i.e. are the original words translated into English correctly.

And this is verified by what exactly...another translation?

 

[mattskramer]

What an absolute idiot you must be to think that modernization of things like spelling negates the content of the AKJ. Claiming there are multiple versions of the AKJ is the last line of defense of sinners, like you, who are going straight to Hell.

Damn. (Pun intended) That is another thing that irks me about Christianity. So many self-righteous (Christians) claim to have all of the answers and seem to think that they can decide for God who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. The Bible is vague in different areas. It has different translations and vastly different interpretations. It seems to even contradict itself and is scientifically inaccurate if taken literally. Besides that, there are many different “branches” and branches of branches. Consider Catholicism and Protestantism. We even have different branches of Catholicism. Within Protestantism we have Anabaptist Anglican / Episcopal, Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, Quaker, Presbyterian, etc.
For someone to come right out and say, “…sinners, like you, who are going straight to Hell” is to practically speak for God. Ultimately, when all is said and done, God (assuming tht he, she, it, or they exist) will be the ultimate judge.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think you'll hear any arguments on that one yet wouldn't you agree that people are free to express thier opinions based on thier own interpretation? Really---I mean if someone walks up to me and tells me I'm going to hell means about as much to me as someone warning me that if I don't handle money the way I think I should, I will go broke.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't think you'll hear any arguments on that one yet wouldn't you agree that people are free to express thier opinions based on thier own interpretation? Really---I mean if someone walks up to me and tells me I'm going to hell means about as much to me as someone warning me that if I don't handle money the way I think I should, I will go broke.

Oh. I believe that people should be free to speak their mind. I think that people should be allowed to speak their opinion and make claims, as wrong as those presumptuous statements might be. Yet, sometimes the sentences and words that people choose do more harm to their objective than good – particularly if their goal is to convert people.

I’m just saying that it “rubs me the wrong way” when someone comes across as arrogant and presumptuously concludes that I’m going to hell – based on his interpretation of his translation of his religious book. My reply would be, “Thank you for your concern. Good bye.”

Anyway, I just wanted to throw in my “two cents”.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh. I believe that people should be free to speak their mind. I think that people should be allowed to speak their opinion and make claims, as wrong as those presumptuous statements might be. Yet, sometimes the sentences and words that people choose do more harm to their objective than good – particularly if their goal is to convert people.

I’m just saying that it “rubs me the wrong way” when someone comes across as arrogant and presumptuously concludes that I’m going to hell – based on his interpretation of his translation of his religious book. My reply would be, “Thank you for your concern. Good bye.”

Anyway, I just wanted to throw in my “two cents”.

If you could leave it at that it would be great but to get offended at Christmas trees and Christmas Carols in America AT CHRISTMAS IS ABSURD.
It would be like me going to Israel and filing a suit against them for celebrating passover. The ACLU limits it's "protecting" to those who aren't Christian. Sorta like Nazis except they "concentrate" on Chirstians.

 

[flaja]

And this is verified by what exactly...another translation?

Yes, but not necessarily a translation of the Bible. For example, many modern translations translate the term monogenes in John 1:18 to mean “unique” rather than the AKJ’s “only begotten”. In his book Crowned With Glory, ©2000 Dr. Thomas Holland indicates that the word is used in 8 other NT verses (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) and each time it indicates a parent-child relationship- either an only son, an only daughter or an only child. A translation such as the ISV translates the term both ways: as only child when the people discussed are unnamed, but it uses the term unique son when Isaac is mentioned and unique God when Jesus is discussed. How can the word be correct both ways in the same translation?

Further confirmation that monogenes means only begotten comes from
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm. The author of this article uses as his authority a neighbor who is a Greek native of Thesalonika and fluent in English. The article claims that modern Greeks can understand Koine so the Greeks read the Bible without any intermediates between them and the manuscripts. Funk & Wagnalls indicates that following the reign of Justinian the literary form of Greek was confined to church use, a few scholars and a few writers. As the Byzantine Empire disintegrated spoken Greek evolved to a great extent, but literary Koine remained unchanged- but still in use in the major cultural centers. The literary form of Greek continued mostly unchanged into Turkish times and was still used for religious writing. Vernacular Greek did not begin to supplant literary Koine until the latter half of the 19th century. So the end result is that Greek writers have a continuous tradition since Biblical times- they should know what the Koine of the Biblical manuscripts mean and they know that the Koine word for unique is not monogenes. What right does a translator, for whom Greek is not a first language, have to say native speakers are wrong?

Also, we should consider the use of monogenes in its linguistic and historical aspects since the term predates the writing of the NT. As an advocate of modern translation you probably reject the scholarship behind Strong’s Lexicon. But a more recent lexicon, the Bauer, (Arndt) Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon, supports the historical translation by saying that the term monogenes is analogous to prototokos which means firstborn. Again the term is associated with a parent-child relationship and not with uniqueness.

On the historical level we can examine how monogenes was used by the early Church as well as the Greco-Roman community at large. On page 231 of The Johannine Use Of Monogenes Reconsidered (NTS 29, 1983) John V. Dahms concluded that the modern reading of monogenes has little to support it, while evidence from Philo, Justin and Tertullian, as well as the its use in the NT itself makes it clear that "only Begotten" is the most accurate translation for the term.

Monogenes as used in the AKJ did not originate in Christian times. The online periodical Open Face for June 2002 reports that Grace Theological Journal says, "The Greek translations of the Old Testament (Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus) also employ the word nine times, each time translating a form of the Hebrew word ‘yahid.’ Each one of these occurrences refers to an only child, seven of them to an only child in the ordinary sense. But twice the term is used of Isaac the son of Abraham (Gen 22:2, Aquila; 22:12, Symmachus)...." Apparently the term monogenes has no history of meaning anything but a parent-child relationship.

The online periodical Present Truth (November 2002) published by Smyrna Gospel Ministries also comments on the historical use of the term monogenes:

Christian commentators in the early Church, like modern day Biblical scholars, had to wrestle with the idea of an eternal God having a beginning through the process of begetting. To beget means to bring into being and it can be said that anyone who is begotten had an origin. To maintain the co-eternity of each member of the Trinity many of the early Church Fathers postulated that God the Father eternally generates God the Son. This makes the Son dependent upon, and thus in-equal to, God the Father. Such an idea is as unacceptable to me as the thought that Jesus had an origin, for both theories negate the literal sonship of Jesus.

But yet the Church Fathers still accepted monogenes as meaning only-begotten. If the 1st century Church and the NT writers did not believe in the literal sonship of Jesus and if they accepted monogenes to mean unique how did later Christians ever change the term to mean only-begotten? If Jesus is the unique God rather than the only-begotten Son of God the Church Fathers could have retained the unique reading of monogenes instead of devising eternal generation to explain His sonship.

The more widespread use of monogenes does not support the modern translations. Various websites indicate that the term monogenes was applied to the Greek goddesses Hecate and Persephone and to several other Greek deities to mean only-begotten. How could the NT writers have used this term to mean unique when the Greek society for which they wrote used the term to mean only-begotten?

Modern translations that render monogenes as “unique” rather than “only-begotten” are flat wrong from a linguistic and historical standpoint. So why would modern Bible translators intentionally mis-translate a term that is intimately connected with a point of doctrine, if they do not wish to change doctrine?

BTW: A thought occurred to me: If Jesus is the unique God, then there must be other gods in existence. How else can we determine that Jesus is the unique God without having a pantheon to compare Him to? If there is only one God, then He is not unique, since He does not have any characteristic not displayed by the other gods since those other gods do not exist. In Greco-Roman mythology Zeus was a unique god since he was king of the gods on Mount Olympus- no other god was similarly king. If Jesus was the unique God in comparison to the Father, then were Father and Son separate Gods? This would destroy Judeo-Christian monotheism.

 

[flaja]

Oh. I believe that people should be free to speak their mind. I think that people should be allowed to speak their opinion and make claims, as wrong as those presumptuous statements might be.

And just what entitles you to declare that the claims made by others are wrong, while yours are right?