f03caf No.854019
How do we make sense of Biblical cosmology like the diagram shows? It's pretty typical of the Near Eastern cosmology of the time and the Biblical descriptions are extremely similar to the descriptions we see in other ancient Near Eastern cultures like in Babylon, Assyria, and even Egypt. The heavenly bodies were believed to be lesser divine beings/angels (hence, "Yahweh of Hosts" and the various verses equating the stars with angels like Job 38:7), the Earth was thought to be flat and covered like a tent by the raqia (Isaiah 40:22), there was a great abyss/chaos/tehom/primeval waters that surrounded the Earth (see of course the opening chapter of Genesis, as well as the numerous references to chaoskampf in the Psalms and Isaiah, Psalm 74:12-14 is a good example). These were all pretty typical motifs of other ancient Near Easter cultures. But a lot of this goes over modern people's heads because of how removed from the culture and time they are.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6eb9cb No.854025
>>854019
Lets talk about how you relate to all of this. How do you fit in to all this, OP?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854029
What I like about being Catholic is that we don't have this problem and don't have to deny reality.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
328bb6 No.854039
>>854029
Because Roman Catholics don't believe in the Bible, you're pagans, not Christians, stop pretending to be Christians when you literally never have been, you're really no different from the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses on this matter. You're the religion of the coming Antichrist.
>>854019
The KJV Bible does not teach any of what you just said. The KJV Bible teaches that the Earth is spherical.
>He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
>Job 26:7, KJV Bible (And remember, the KJV is God is book form per John 1:1 KJV, and we know God cannot lie, see Titus 1:2 KJV)
Please, stop promoting evolutionist conspiracy lies about the KJV Bible, they are Satanic. Though perhaps they are drawing these conclusions from non-KJV Bibles which, in that case, isn't surprising since those Bibles are Satanic and are indeed full of lies about God, having been written primarily by Roman Catholics and their Protestant spin-off cults.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854040
>>854039
We believe in God and created the Bible, deciding what goes in it and what didn't.
God created the Catholic Church.
You believe in the King James Bible, with unicorns. It's the only translation with unicorns. Feel free to show us a real live unicorn. Of course, you also seem to believe that God is an Englishman, speaking English, since many of you worship a book which is idolatry. Christianity did not spring up in 1611 with the abomination of the King James Corruption of the Holy Bible. Christianity started with Christ establishing his Church with Saint Peter, Bishop of Rome (western) and Antioch (Eastern)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
822496 No.854042
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854060
>>854042
You didn't answer why you think God is English.
Or why you think Jesus was speaking in vain when he was talking about establishing his Church on Saint Peter.
You know, the important stuff.
You are pretty funny, gotta give you that.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854062
>>854042
You also didn't answer what to do about where the KJV and science conflict.
Consider that the Big Bang, the Creation of the Universe, was discovered by a Catholic Priest.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f8c95d No.854063
>>854062
>>854060
>>854040
Can you please leave us all alone. Everyone is worse off because you're here, including you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4ab4ea No.854064
>>854040
>We believe in God and created the Bible, deciding what goes in it and what didn't.
Then how come you worship thousands of saints, bow before statues and images, and follow in the traditions of men? That's not Christianity, that's paganism
>God created the Catholic Church.
Lmao no. Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. On the other hand, Jesus started the first Baptist church in A.D. 33 and since then, true New Testament churches have continued throughout the ages until today.
>You believe in the King James Bible, with unicorns. It's the only translation with unicorns. Feel free to show us a real live unicorn.
See >>854042
>Of course, you also seem to believe that God is an Englishman, speaking English, since many of you worship a book which is idolatry.
No, God is the single eternal creator of the universe who exists as a Trinity. The Son incarnated as Jesus Christ in the year 0 and appeared to us in book form in the year 1611. Worshipping the KJV Bible isn't idolatry because John 1:1 of the KJV literally says the KJV Bible is God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c78b5d No.854067
>>854019
lmao none of those verses prove your diagram correct. You should at least come armed with proper evidence before making an accusation like that.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854071
>>854064
>Then how come you worship thousands of saints
Catholics don't worship saints
>bow before statues and images,
Catholic teaching is that you bow at the name of Jesus and kneel on the right knee before the alter of God.
>and follow in the traditions of men?
The men you speak of are the Apostles of Jesus Christ, upon which Christ established his one church.
>That's not Christianity, that's paganism
Following Jesus Christ is not paganism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854072
>>854064
>Lmao no. Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. On the other hand, Jesus started the first Baptist church in A.D. 33 and since then, true New Testament churches have continued throughout the ages until today.
Baptist church was started by an Anglican heretic named "John Smyth" in 1609.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists.
Smyth was a protestant who decided that he was right and all other protestants wrong, and he started his own church
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f2de7d No.854073
>>854062
>the Big Bang
No Anon you're mistaken, that contradicts all bibles, not just the KJV
>>854040
>We created the Bible, deciding what goes in it and what didn't
Imagine the hubris of this, imagine standing before God and answering for these exceptionally vain words
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
000000 No.854089
>>854073
Maybe the Bible is right and you just can't understand it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e0ac42 No.854104
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>854019
I assume that you are asking how to reconcile ancient cosmology with what modern science shows us. So that's what I'm going to answer.
Basically, the Bible was written in a language that ancient people understood. It's point is to tell us about God, not about the natural world, so God worked through the divinely inspired authors to explain God in a way people who lived back then could understand. They describe the earth as a flat, domed place because it's neither nessecary or easy to explain the actual shape of the earth.
As for if we need to believe in a flat earth, the answer is no. We have many idioms in our modern English language that are scientifically untrue (like "sunrise" and "edges of the earth"), but even if the language used is scientifically innacurate, we get the point that it's trying to get across (even if the sun doesn't actually rise, we all know that "sunrise" means morning).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6eb9cb No.854105
>>854072
Who believed in Dexter's theory of Baptist origins before 1881? It doesn't matter how many times you desperately repeat it otherwise.
You can create and play around with your own modern definitions of words all you want. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change what actually happened one bit. Christians were called anabaptists after the Munster rebellion as a way to cast them as seditionists, round them up and kill them. This was all politically motivated for state church reasons. As we see, baptists took that name, which was originally an accusation made as early as 405 AD, and recast it into its current form.
>The Anabaptists, at their first appearance in New-England, were enthusiastically troublesome; they chose among themselves the meanest of the people for their ministers; they call themselves Baptists by way of abbreviation of the name Anabaptists… Some of them vainly imagine, that they ought to be called by that name in a peculiar manner; their baptism being the only scriptural baptism: they would not communicate with persons baptized in infancy only; if occasionally in a congregational meeting, upon a child's being presented for baptism, they withdrew, to the great disturbance of the congregation: fines were enacted; Holmes, because he would not pay his fine, was whipped thirty lashes.
Douglass, William, A summary, historical and political, of the first planting, progressive improvements, and present state of the British settlements in North-America (1748), pp. 445-446.
Your theory cannot explain why there were baptists in England such as pastor Weyerburton (d. 1594, Ivirney, A History of the English Baptists (1811), p. 506.) and John Perry, not to mention English state bishops complaining about anabaptists in the year 1550 in the Henry VIII era.
>John Perry—M.A. according to historians, was born in Wales. Some say "Mountains of Wales and County of Brecknock." This still, is the description of the vicinity of Olchon. Mr. Perry might have been born, near, or further westward. We have sufficient evidence that he was affectionately concerned for the salvation of his countrymen. The very titles of two books published by him in 1588, amount to a full proof of that. The first runs thus, "A View of some parts of such public wants and disorders as are in the service of God, written her Majesty's country of Wales; with an humble petition to the high court of Parliament for their speedy readiness." … Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans saith, that Mr. Perry was a Welsh divine, and gives him an excellent character for learning, piety, ministerial gifts, diligence, etc., though not a hint that he was a Baptist. However, A. Wood, in Ath. Oxon. many years before Neale, speaks out plainly saying, that Perry "was a notorious Anabaptist, of which partly he was the Coryphous (or leader)." He was educated at Oxford, and went to Cambridge, preached at both places; and was, says Wood himself, "esteemed by many a tolerable Scholar, and edifying preacher, and a good man." This was a great character given by those authors to a Baptist in those days. The noted Strype wrote sufficiently acrimonious against Mr. Perry blaming him for saying that popery then was intolerable in Wales. Though even Mr. Strype owns that Mr. Perry expressed a great concern for his native country; yet chargeth him with anabaptistery. So great was the rage and fury against him in those days, that he was apprehended, condemned and put to violent death in 1593 or 1594, aged 34. Dr. Henry Sampson names Mr. Perry among "the several persons that were troubled, deprived, and silenced by Whitgist or agents in the high commissions court, the star chamber, and the courts' ecclesiastical." -The Dr. S. Calamy's Abridgement, second edition preface.
The History of the Baptist Churches in Wales, in: The American Baptist Heritage in Wales, pp. 14-15.
cont'd
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6eb9cb No.854106
>>854105
>If this reason should take place, "The apostles used it not, ergo it is not lawful for us to use it"—or this either, "they did it, ergo we must needs do it"—then all Christians may have no place abiding, all must, under pain of damnation, depart with their possessions, as Peter said they did, Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, &c.; we may have no ministration of Christ's sacraments in churches, for they had no churches, but were fain to do all in their own houses; we must baptize abroad in the fields as the apostles did; we may not receive the holy communion but at supper, and with the table furnished with other meats, as the Anabaptists do now stiffly and obstinately affirm that it should be; our naming of the child in baptism, our prayer upon him, our crossing, and our threefold abrenunciation, and our white chrisom, all must be left, for these we cannot prove by God's word, that the apostles did them. And, if to do anything which we cannot prove that they did be sin, then a greatest part is sin that we do daily in baptism. What followeth then other things, than to receive the Anabaptists' opinion, and to be baptized anew? O wicked folly and blind ignorancy!
The Writings of John Bradford, M.A. Edited by Aubrey Townsend, 1853. in: "Reply of Bishop Ridley to Bishop Hooper, 1550." Vol. 2, pp. 382-383.
>I did observe from this Author, tho' Mr. Lewis takes no Notice of it, how he endeavoured to shew the near Agreement there was between the Anabaptists and the Puritans; and that the Doctor did acknowledge, that there were several Anabaptistical Conventicles in London, and other Places; and that some of their Ministers had been bred at our Universities. So that, from this Author, Mr. Lewis could not but see there were many Anabaptists, and learned ones too, before the Year 1600. Now such was the State and Condition of the Church of England, in those early Days of the Reformation, that great Diversity of Opinions were found amongst them. Those stiled, by way of Contempt, Puritans, inveighted against some Abuses; refused to comply with some Ceremonies, and question'd the Superiority of the Bishops. They set up a new Model of Church Discipline, and, in the End, resolved to further a Reformation of the Church, without waiting for the Consent of the Magistrate. How ridiculous then is Mr. Lewis's contemptible Sneer upon the Anabaptists in the Year 1615; when he says, "These were so far come to their Senses, as to acknowledge Magistracy to be God's Ordinance."
Crosby, A Brief Reply to John Lewis's Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England (1738), pp. 20-21.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6eb9cb No.854109
>>854106
Not to mention what about those that were killed, see:
>Mr. Lewis begins his Account of the English Baptists, page 38. of his Brief History; and there tells us from Stow, "That on the 25th of May, 1535. nineteen Men and six Women were examined in Saint Paul's Church London; that fourteen of them were condemned, a Man and a Woman of them burnt in Smithfield, and the other twelve sent to other Towns, there to be burnt."
>Mr. Lewis adds, "That Bishop Latimer said in one of his Sermons before King Edward VI. that he had heard, of credible Men, that they [the aforesaid fourteen Persons] went to their Death even intrepidè, as ye will say, without any Fear in the World."
Crosby, A Brief Reply to John Lewis's Brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England (1738), p. 13.
>That after much tyranny and persecution, and murdering, which was inflicted upon the christian hosts in many countries and kingdoms, and also in England, in December 1538, an edict was promulgated against the believers, and those who were baptized according to the ordinance of Christ. They were exiled to the cold regions, and had to hasten their flight, whither chance would lead them.
>Hence it happened, that some fled for refuge to Holland, but when they came to Delf, they were spied out by their enemies, and betrayed to the tyrants… after they endured much derision and many severities, and proved stedfast, and were put to death the 7th of January, 1539; sixteen of them were beheaded with the sword, and fifteen women drowned.
>The above thirty one, who fled from England in 1539, and were executed for the testimony of Jesus Christ, were undoubtedly not the twenty seven, who were put to death in 1538…
van Braght, Thieleman J., The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs’ Mirror, (Lampeter Square, Penn. 1837 Ed.) Tr. by J. D. Rupp., part second, p. 376.
To put it in context – this was all, of course, right after the Münster rebellion of 1534-35, and the blame for it was laid on all those who refused to recognize infant baptism regardless of them not being new-age spiritualists who claimed to receive new revelations, like the man who actually instigated that Rebellion in the first place. Yet we see that even into the time period of the 1740s people were still attributing the baptists' origins to that event and calling them anabaptists, despite neither of those things being what they actually were.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854113
Well, you know.
Baptist say that their religion dates back to Christ. That's easily disproven.
Baptist say that the earth is 7,000 years old. Again, easily disproven.
Baptist say that their wrong interpretation of the Bible is Catholic, which we know from Pope Pius XII is false.
Why would you try and make sense out of a Baptist belief that is obviously wrong.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6eb9cb No.854114
>>854113
You can't disprove Christ, anon, and OP's representation of Biblical cosmology is false, and is not the true Biblical cosmology. Biblical cosmology is not wrong either, so that's three strikes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854120
>>854114
>You can't disprove Christ, anon,
Why the deceit? when it's so easy just to look up a post and see I said "Baptist say that their religion dates back to Christ. That's easily disproven."
The devil is disappointed in you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6eb9cb No.854122
>>854120
>Why the deceit?
You're fighting against Christ, so that's accurate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854126
>>854122
Too often when a baptist replies, they're either innocently ignorant or willfully bearing false witness against God.
But even when you correct them, they will come right back with the deceit.
Don't pretend to be doing the work of God by violating His commandments!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854128
>>854122
Maybe we should get back on topic, and you should post your cosmology and astrophysical explanation of the universe.
Be sure to keep it to 7000 years old.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
698492 No.854273
>>854114
brother, could you enlighten the unwashed masses what the real cosmology is so we can get back on topic instead of this being a denominational quarrel thread #411458 ?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854275
>>854273
>could you enlighten the unwashed masses what the real cosmology is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Not really my field. I was more of a quantum mechanic.
The Catholic Church regards reason as a source of revelation and never feared natural philosophy.
Not bumped because the protestants never explained what their cosmology is, but demand answers like a Pharisee.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854276
>>854273
The first book by Wheeler is the one most physics course use. It has the advantage that it can be tailored to courses of different levels, with chapters marked that can be skipped.
The Wald Book is also good.
I've never finished either one.
The third book is Rindler. I have an older copy, one that wasn't purged of ideas that gave away the story cuz some parts of physics are classified. I asked one of the profs on my thesis committee about the change, and he said "it made it simpler to understand". No it didn't. I hid a mathematical fact.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c88eaa No.854284
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c4f132 No.855058
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92bab2 No.855081
You can't go to Antarctica outside of of guided tours because we have to keep the penguins safe. The Antarctic treaty has never violated by any country since it's conception.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4d555 No.855084
>>854105
>>854106
>>854109
It's quite simple, actually. The "anabaptists" referred to then was the generic term for any heretical group that re-baptized people. It did not and does not refer to your particular denomination. The reality is, you have very little in common belief with the "anabaptists" referred to in the passages you quoted. The true origins of the modern Baptist movement as you and I know it can be traced back to the protestant reformation. This trail of blood theory some of you believe is verifiably false.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4d555 No.855094
>>854042
So wait, you believe the KJV is perfect, right?
So…
Either unicorns are real or the KJV translators got something wrong. Because you had to cite something extrabibical to explain they meant something else besides unicorns.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
333c1d No.855111
God's presence is continuous. Your perception of time is in the gap. God's presence is not diminished by misperception.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
845db6 No.855119
>>855094
It proves you have the wrong definition of unicorns.
>So wait, you believe the KJV is perfect, right?
The Bible is infallible and contains no contradictions, being God's word.
>>855084
>The "anabaptists" referred to then was the generic term for any heretical group that re-baptized people.
My belief is founded upon the New Testament and upon Scripture as a whole. And yes, people that believe the Bible according to its direct doctrinal statements have always existed. So obviously, they would be accused by the world. As Christ said, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." Christ told us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church.
>The reality is, you have very little in common belief with the "anabaptists" referred to in the passages you quoted.
Anyone who follows the Bible will participate in Scriptural baptism. The common belief is completely within the Scriptures. As we see related in Jude 1:3 where the apostle says, "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
And Paul the apostle writes, Ephesians 4:5, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism".
The translation that we have now in English is based on earlier manuscripts, handed down through the generations to us, for its textual basis, and is also influenced by earlier translations in English, as well as in other languages, for accuracy. In turn, this has influenced the English language that has grown and developed since 1611.
>The true origins of the modern Baptist movement as you and I know it
Not if you define it by believing the Bible as I have done. All other sects have broken away from the true church in their sectarianism, and they do not truly use the Bible as their authority for doctrine. But I can prove that there has always been a church that does keep God's word, which are the sacred Scriptures. And I know that, furthermore, they are how the Scripture has been transmitted to us today.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
90aac5 No.855121
>>855119
>It proves you have the wrong definition of unicorns.
"unicorns" doesn't mean unicorns, as it has since the 13th century, because if it did, then the KJV(pbuh) would be translated wrong. Got it.
>The Bible is infallible and contains no contradictions, being God's word.
And the KJV(pbuh) is the perfect translation of the Bible, right? If yes, then unicorns are real. Unicorns are mentioned, by name, at least nine times in the KJV(pbuh). If unicorns are not real, as the KJV(pbuh) says, then the KJV(pbuh) is not perfect. if the KJV(pbuh) doesn't really mean unicorns when it says "unicorn" then you are appealing to something extrabibical to interpret what animal "unicorn" means. Either way, the KJV(pbuh) is the work of human hands and as a work of human translation, is fallible.
>Not if you define it by believing the Bible as I have done
Do you think Paul and Jude believed the Bible and the New Testament?
The answer is no. They wrote the Bible. They couldn't have believed in something that did not yet exist.
>All other sects have broken away from the true church in their sectarianism, and they do not truly use the Bible as their authority for doctrine.
Are you Catholic? You sure sound like one.
>But I can prove that there has always been a church that does keep God's word, which are the sacred Scriptures. And I know that, furthermore, they are how the Scripture has been transmitted to us today.
You realize literally all Christians claim this, right?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
845db6 No.855122
>>855121
>Do you think Paul and Jude believed the Bible and the New Testament?
Hi anon. The word of God contained in it, yes. S. Peter states that the epistles of Paul are Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Obviously that means to him, they were Scripture as well.
>You realize literally all Christians claim this, right?
If you break out of your imaginary box for a moment, in actuality, none of the sectarians do. They all talk about how there are different traditions and so forth. They point to manmade documents, such as the papal encyclicals and so on, for their basis. But what does John the Apostle tell us? "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son." - (1 John 5:9)
So we see that the inspired word by God is "greater" than the witness of man. Therefore, as we can see, the sectarians who sideline the word of God (which is in the Holy Bible) have all things wrong and out of order. I pray for their recovery from error.
As it says in 2 Timothy 2,
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
Amen.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dcbc3d No.855138
>>855121
>"unicorns" doesn't mean unicorns, as it has since the 13th century,
I'm not a KJV-Onlyist, but even I know the proper taxonomy for Rhinos is "Rhinoceros unicornis".
Should someone who purports to be a Latin display such ignorance?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d2f97c No.855141
>>855138
>the proper taxonomy for Rhinos is "Rhinoceros unicornis".
Binomial nomenclature wasn't a thing until the late 1750s. The KJV wasn't published until 1611. Thus, the taxonomy explanation is anachronistic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dcbc3d No.855147
>>855141
> the taxonomy explanation is anachronistic.
I have to concede your point, it is rather, isn't it ?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2cd083 No.855149
>>854019
A little off topic but biblical cosmology looks really cool. Image how scary Tehom would be.
>>854039
>catholics are pagans
>the kjv is God in book form
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
845db6 No.855169
>>855149
Taking the word of God on His authority is not the same thing as what you're describing.
Also, using one good translation (good meaning accurate) is not the same thing as using many corrupted versions. And this should be immediate, because the latter position naturally arrives at the conclusion, that you can choose whatever you want Scripture to say. If you don't like some passage, just excise it by saying it probably wasn't there in the originals because nobody supposedly can be sure. Or maybe just translate one word differently, look for someone that has made a translation that agree with you, etc. Once you throw away Biblical infallibility and preservation - becoming a multiple version user - you have stopped believing in all of Scripture. It is obvious why that position contradicts the doctrine of Christ then, since all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and some people are rejecting some of it. Either that, or they say that two disagreeing versions are both true. There's no point in living in denial of this.
Luke 16:17
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
Luke 4:4
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1bb436 No.855203
>>855141
That doesn't necessarily mean that people didn't refer to them or other single-horned creatures as unicorns in some way or another.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
845db6 No.855205
>>855169
Also, I forgot to say Amen. That is the truth of God, these are the true sayings of God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6519f6 No.855224
>>855169
For everyone to agree on a point requires a base minimum of shared understanding of a given tradition to make that point meaningful. This greater context is always wilfully ignored in Protestantism.
If we take Sola Scriptura as given, then if we can interpret Verse A by Verse B, or Verse B by Verse A, then where does it say, in Scripture, which interpretation is correct?
How many differing interpretations are there to explain the meaning of a verse? How have they developed over time? And will they develop again in the future? The answer is numerous for the first question, greatly for the second, and undoubtedly for the third. So, if Protestantism keeps changing then its popularly accepted claims are without grounds. It is a tradition derived from a greater tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
>Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b47ef0 No.855234
>>855224
that's called hermeneutics
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
845db6 No.855238
>>855224
>For everyone to agree on a point requires a base minimum of shared understanding of a given tradition to make that point meaningful.
See Ephesians 2:18
<For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Also 1 Corinthians 2:13-14
<Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So it is clearly shown from this that God himself must be direct and only source of the truth. It is necessary in order so that every saved person can come to the one and only truth (which is in Jesus Christ amen), and so also in order for them to have the one true faith, that they have indwelling of the Holy Spirit as described for us in John 14.
Notice what Christ says there.
<But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
>then where does it say, in Scripture, which interpretation is correct?
First of all, it says in 2 Peter that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, but that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It also says that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God in 2 Timothy. By looking at the world we clearly see how it is impossible for people to be agreed, and to be taught the truth about Scripture from God without being saved first. In Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30, and 2 Corinthians 1:22, in addition to what I quoted from Ephesians 2:18 above, we learn that the saints have been "sealed" with the Holy Spirit of God. Christ tells us that the Spirit of truth shall dwell in us in John 14:17. We are told again that the same Holy Spirit shall guide us into all truth. Consider the following:
John 16:13
<Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
1 John 2:27
<But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
2 Corinthians 1:22
<Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
>How many differing interpretations are there to explain the meaning of a verse?
According to what St. Peter says in 2 Peter 1:20, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
As explained above, all believers are guided into one truth (John 16:13), and "we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." (Ephesians 2:18). This is what makes it possible for the truth to be known, and there is no other way. Manmade traditions cannot substitute for this.
Hopefully now it will make sense how nobody can or should be interpreting. Rather, they should become saved, get right with God, and receive the Spirit of truth, exactly as the Lord Jesus Christ described in his word in John 14:16-17 and elsewhere. Unsaved people - people who aren't born again - can't find the truth on their own. It just isn't possible for them without God to help them each individually as described in Scripture. I understand that many unsaved people will have a hard time understanding all of that unless they are receptive to the truth of God's word. As it says in John 17:17, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
>How have they developed over time?
>The answer is numerous for the first question, greatly for the second, and undoubtedly for the third.
This is undoubtedly False, because God inspired His word and has known the truth about all things from the beginning. People who make up their own manmade traditions and resist the eternal and unchanging truth of God are wrong and misled. As it says, the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. Furthermore, it says in 1 Corinthians 1:18 that, "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
<Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Amen.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6519f6 No.855239
>>855238
>By looking at the world we clearly see how it is impossible for people to be agreed, and to be taught the truth about Scripture from God without being saved first.
>All believers are guided into one truth
This is circular reasoning. For you are arguing that one cannot be taught the truth about the Scripture from God unless one is saved, and that one cannot be saved unless one knows the truth of Scripture. Your conclusion is implicit in your premises, your argument is therefore specious and so must be false.
You contradict this position later in the same post:
>Unsaved people - people who aren't born again - can't find the truth on their own.
>I understand that many unsaved people will have a hard time understanding all of that unless they are receptive to the truth of God's word.
>People who make up their own manmade traditions and resist the eternal and unchanging truth of God are wrong and misled.
Were any text able to be read and followed without interpretation then no translation of the text would be necessary, and no argument over its meaning possible.
Your entire post amounts to an avoidance of my argument and suggests that you cannot provide an answer. For your position is illogical and contradictory. To wit, the translation of the KJV, the Bible that you are quoting from, was based on previous translations, i.e., on a tradition of translations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
845db6 No.855243
>>855239
>Your conclusion is implicit in your premises
Anon, there is no premise or conclusion here; there is no conclusion to derive from premises, and no premises from which to derive conclusions in this statement, just facts from God's word. Agree or disagree depending on whether you accept or reject His word. There is no appeal to reasoning or logic on my part aside from that already present in the Bible itself.
>For you are arguing that one cannot be taught the truth about the Scripture from God unless one is saved,
I'm not arguing anything other than what is written. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 says, "we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
>You contradict this position later in the same post:
How are either of those statements a contradiction. Are you a pelagian, do you think people are capable of doing good without the help of God? "On their own" is in the sense of receiving no help from God.
As for the second statement, some people resist God. This resistance being the reason why Christ said in John 5:40, "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
>Were any text able to be read and followed without interpretation
Do you think the Holy Spirit doesn't interpret?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
aa4648 No.855314
>>855243
>Are you a pelagian, do you think people are capable of doing good without the help of God?
Yes. Rahab the prostitute did a good thing before she knew God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
845db6 No.855317
>>855314
I wasn't asking you though.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.