Clouseau

Oh, great. Another 'no True Scotsman argument' 'argument'.

Enlightenment! TV! Raucous!

Well, it's all the rage these days! They can't even spell! Or is that you?

Mr. Logic

Thanks, that clears things up! I hear you about not being noticed. I am use to getting a lot of attention on the CARM Forum, but putting most Bible Teachers back to the wall, with the harmony of the N.T.

I have never lost a debate against a Fundamentalist in over 10 years on line, and actually got a Greek Scholar to agree that Jesus never commanded water baptism for the Church age. I have also had many "Bible Believing" Christians admit that the book of James is not compatible with the writings of Paul. None of these People turned around on these issues over night. They all came out swinging to promote their spoon fed views.

The Problem with "Religious" Types is that they will cut around the pieces of the puzzle to force them to fit an agenda. They are bound and determined to defend a 66 book bible, as if the Writers of the N.T. were saying that Scripture being from God was talking about a 66 book version of scripture. They also act as if the Apostles never made mistakes. They made plenty, but they learned from them and grew! The Religionist will focus on the fact that Paul water baptized, but ignore the fact that he later saw that it caused divisions, and that he THANKED GOD that he only baptized a FEW in the first place! 1 Cor. 1 One of the most ignored verses by Religionists is v.17 where Paul flat out states that "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel"!
To say that "Paul did it, so we should all follow his example" is willful ignorance!
Hope that this helps someone to be more open to what is truly written rather than trust Christian Religionists or oppose them.
The blind were leading the blind in Jesus' day and that hasn't changed.

Thanks D.A. for the info.

Dargo

The commonly accepted definition of an Evangelical Christian is one who believes that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as his or her lord and savior is going to hell. Thus these churches place a strong emphasis on evangelism. All fundie Christians would consider themselves Evangelicals, and some (although not many) of them believe the King James version is the only valid English Bible translation.

You claimed no Evangelical under 90 years old uses the King James version. I'm pretty sure those churches listed on that website include plenty of fairly young members. I went to a conservative Christian high school in the 80's and had a 25 year old teacher who believed the King James translation was divinely inspired. Sorry if I'm coming out as a smart ass, but I'm afraid King James onlyism is more common than you realize.

Dargo

I've known some Christians who believed in Biblical inerrancy who understood Greek and Hebrew. Last time I checked, conservative seminaries like those operated by the Southern Baptist convention require their graduates to take courses in Greek and Hebrew. It is true that most Christians, Evangelical or not, don't understand the original languages.

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Well I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about... but then nobody knows what I'm talking about anyway!

Out of curiosity where did you get that information? Maybe it's a culture thing, seeing you might be from the UK and Dargo being from the USA?

I would have to agree with that explanation, being from the USA. Are Evangelical Christians different then that in the UK, Clouseau?

Clouseau

And what do Christians believe?

(And the word is 'evangelical'.)

What is a fundie Christian?

I'm sure they do, but if you can apply just a little of your vast intelligence you can work it out that I don't think they are evangelicals.

I am well aware how popular this moronic cult has become. What you don't seem to realise is that evangelicalism is not half as common as you think it is.

Clouseau

The word is 'evangelicalism', not a proper noun, which would indicate a formal organisation with a postal address.

Wherever they are in the world, evangelicals always use original languages when possible (and many don't even possess a Bible). Anyone who knows anything about the Bible in those languages knows that it is simply impossible to provide a translation into any language without serious loss of information. It is quite difficult enough translating between modern languages, say, from French to English, as any English-speaking French student will readily tell you. It is even more difficult with Greek- and with Hebrew it is so difficult that many translators feel that they are doing the text a disservice just by attempting a translation. In short, unless a person, by whatever means, deals with the Bible in original languages, he/she does not really know what is going on. That is why the evangelical tradition is for long sermons (that often used to be called 'Bible readings') in which the preacher, or teacher, goes through all the nuances and subtleties of a passage that a Bible translation cannot hold. In any case, anyone who claims that any translation can be 'the Word of God' is a vile liar who relies on the ignorance of his hearers, or has not the faintest idea what he is talking about.

Translations are for newbies, for dabblers, for amateurs- and in the case of the KJV, for those who find the Bible distasteful and prefer its message wrapped up in the cotton-wool of stilted archaism. It is also the choice of many sceptics who use the KJV to misquote a Bible text- if they were to use a modern translation, their case would fall- or to poke fun at the 'begats' and the unicorns, of course. Truly the friend of sinners, the KJV!

Dargo

Clouseau, in answer to your questions about fundie it is short for Fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalist Christians believe in salvation by faith, hell for all unbelievers, Biblical inerrancy, a literal interpretation of Genesis, Jesus is coming back soon, abortion is murder, and homosexuality is a vile sin.

Not many of them that I've known can read the Bible in the original languages, and thus most of them have to use a translation. Some, but not in my experience, most of these believe the KJV is the only valid English translation.

It would appear Evangelical Christian doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in the United States. All Fundamentalist Christians in the US would meet the American definition of Evangelical Christian and would consider themselves Evangelicals. Is there perhaps some online guide to explaining the difference between British Evangelicalism and American Evangelicalism? I'm finding it a little hard to believe that most Evangelicals in the UK would understand Greek and Hebrew.

While it would appear KJV-onlyism is fortunately rare in your country, that website I mentioned earlier lists 5 KJV-only churches in England and one in Scotland. I don't know if these churches would consider themselves ECs or not.

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

I just realized I haven't given Bible John's first post in the debate a good read [just glanced at it yesterday after Mr. Logic thought it was over!]
I know you're out the Bible John, and I want to say I'm sorry! Satan must be doing like Mick Jaggers says he doing...

Dargo

I looked up evangelical in the Oxford online dictionary. It lists.

evangelical

• adjective 1 of or according to the teaching of the gospel or Christianity. 2 relating to a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing Biblical authority and personal conversion. 3 fervent in advocating something.

• noun a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.

— DERIVATIVES evangelicalism noun evangelically adverb.

— ORIGIN from Greek euangelos ‘bringing good news’.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed...elical?view=uk


The generally accepted American defintion of Evangelical Christian seems very similar to the Oxford definition especially the second variant. KJV-onlyist Christians would certainly appear to meet the Oxford definition of an evangelical.