FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page The Bible is total nonsense!!
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 9 of 18 « First 78 9 1011 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-03-2004, 08:26 PM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Picture

I think God made the light and then assigned the light (greater=sun and lesser=moon) to the two "bodies", that is the sun and the moon and now we have them the way they work now. Plausible conjecture?
This is physics we're talking about, not object oriented programming....
Kosh is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 08:35 PM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by mjbeam
Romans 10:13 is too clear to be taken out of context:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

There is no wiggle room here. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. This directly contradicts Matthew.


-mjbeam
You're reading Matthew out of context. You also have to read other parts of the Bible to know what it means to call on the Lord.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 08:42 PM   #83
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 294
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
You're reading Matthew out of context. You also have to read other parts of the Bible to know what it means to call on the Lord.
Not really, it's plain english. It's about as open to interpretation as a traffic sign.


-mjbeam
mjbeam is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 08:55 PM   #84
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
You're reading Matthew out of context. You also have to read other parts of the Bible to know what it means to call on the Lord.
How can one read Mathew out of context, when it was originally written as a stand alone writing? Remember Magus, the bible is a collection of writings, compiled in the 4th century.....
Kosh is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 08:57 PM   #85
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by mjbeam
Not really, it's plain english. It's about as open to interpretation as a traffic sign.


-mjbeam
It isn't plain English. The Bible wasn't written in English.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 09:00 PM   #86
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Kosh
How can one read Mathew out of context, when it was originally written as a stand alone writing? Remember Magus, the bible is a collection of writings, compiled in the 4th century.....
You have to read all of Matthew 7. It discusses knowing people by their fruits. Calling the Lords name and saying you've prophesied and cast out demons isn't doing the will of the Father.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 09:03 PM   #87
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
It isn't plain English. The Bible wasn't written in English.
Quote:
Earlier by Magus55
I don't think translations are flawless, but yes I do think the original was inerrant, and translations are close enough.
By your own statement, it shouldn't matter which language we're reading it in.

Since it is plain English, and that English is "close enough", then there isn't any wiggle room!
Kosh is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 09:12 PM   #88
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Kosh
By your own statement, it shouldn't matter which language we're reading it in.

Since it is plain English, and that English is "close enough", then there isn't any wiggle room!
There isn't any wiggle room. Its not that difficult of a passage. You people are just being stubborn and difficult about it, because its impossible for you to be wrong. When read in context, you can see exactly what Jesus was referring to in Matthew.
Magus55 is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 09:13 PM   #89
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 294
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
You're reading Matthew out of context. You also have to read other parts of the Bible to know what it means to call on the Lord.
So now you want to dispute the meaning of the word on?
Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
You have to read all of Matthew 7. It discusses knowing people by their fruits. Calling the Lords name and saying you've prophesied and cast out demons isn't doing the will of the Father.
Then Romans 10:13 should say something like:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, and being judged worthy by the Lord, shall be saved. "

See, no wiggle room!

But it doesn't say that, does it Magnus? And wishing it doesn't make it so.


-mjbeam
mjbeam is offline  
Old 01-03-2004, 09:16 PM   #90
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by mjbeam
So now you want to dispute the meaning of the word on?

Then Romans 10:13 should say something like:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, and being judged worthy by the Lord, shall be saved. "

See, no wiggle room!

But it doesn't say that, does it Magnus., and wishing it doesn't make it so.


-mjbeam
Sorry that won't work. No one is worthy, if we were, Jesus wouldn't have died. That doesn't make it any more clear.
Magus55 is offline  
 
Page 9 of 18 « First 78 9 1011 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.