Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation

[FullMontyM1 0]

No unfortunately it became about fullmonty giving unsupported beliefs. which is a shame

I invite anyone to go back and read my posts, and read Matt's posts, and see who offered "unsupported beliefs."Monty

[Loismustdie 0]

Actually yes my logic is ironclad. It is not built on this verse but this verse makes it very clearNobody comes to the Father except trhough the Son. You are attempting to offer another way. You disagree with the bible. I will go ahead and stick to the bibleWhen you feel like offering up something of worth that you can actually justify please let me know

There is also one scripture that says that baptism saves you, that doesn't seem to phase you.

[Loismustdie 0]

so God can sin? I love how you mix and match to get what you want. I am ignoring the possibilty that God's law is different for something else? No Do you know why? B/c God laid down The Law. So if you dont choose to follow Jesus you are bound by the Law. So if they dont believe in Jesus they must fulfill THE LAW that God gave to us. I guarantee only one person has ever fulfilled it. The Bible is God's words to us. So you think we must add to the bible? That it isnt good enough or completely. Hmm interestingBurden of proof is on me? Romans 3:23 "All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Theres my proof. Therefore every person on this earth HAS SINNED. Therefore no matter if they believe in God or not they have sinned. No exceptions. Name one group that is righteous. Name one group that doesnt believe in God that deserves to be in heaven. Ignorance is your only "proof" and ignorance isnt an excuse. Actually I widened your own group for you. If you would like we can narrow it down to the Buddhists and Muslims which is what i believe you had earlier...Let me know if it was not this group. Even so...they both worship false Gods/idols. Hmm I think we find those as sins dont we? So they arent righteous are they? Hmmm where does an unrighteous person not get to go?

Matt, you add to the bible constantly- youre religion actually has a new, better, updated version of the bible that COINCIDENTALLY happens to neatly agree with everything that was taught as doctrine taught years before you had the updated version. That doesn't strike you as a little to packaged, does it? How is it that before youre faith had an newly translated version you were able to actually know what the new translated version would have to say?

[Loismustdie 0]

In our hypothetical which we are currently discussing, no one comes to the island.Therefore, for the person in question to experience God, they will have had to do it on their own, in their own mind, or by direct divine intervention by God.If either of these occur, and they become righteous through this process, and inherit the kingdom of God, then they have done so without ever being Christian (in your sense of the word) and without the Bible.You can not change the hypothetical and insert a missionary appearing at the last minute to save the day and your argument (deux ex machina). You must take the hypothetical, as it stands, and reconcile the hypothetical with your point of view (given the above clarifications and reiterrations).Monty

Your hypothetical is not flawed, it just doesn't exist from the christian point of view. A christian believes that if you seek you will find, so a christian believes that God WOULD intervene. Thats probably why he said that it is a flawed proposition. Matts missing the scripture where Jesus said that God watches out for the lame, the blind, the mute- I don't remember where it's at. So, in fact scriptually God says that your hypothetical would not take place. No man cometh to the father but by me- it's pretty clear what he is saying. Now, that scripture was talking about prayer, and God says he doesn't not hear the prayers of a sinner, which brings into question the very basis of Matts teaching because if in fact Matt is correct in his teachings then God is just making the whole I don't listen to sinners thing up.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Matt, you add to the bible constantly- youre religion actually has a new, better, updated version of the bible that COINCIDENTALLY happens to neatly agree with everything that was taught as doctrine taught years before you had the updated version. That doesn't strike you as a little to packaged, does it? How is it that before youre faith had an newly translated version you were able to actually know what the new translated version would have to say?

Yes the NASB bible is a big conspiracy to teach the wrong thing. They arent actually using more accurate and older text than the kjv. They just make it up. Many you are ridiculous. The NASB is the best bible available and nobody of any worth will tell you different. It is the closest translation available to the oldest text available.

[brvheart 1,752]

Matt, you add to the bible constantly- youre religion actually has a new, better, updated version of the bible that COINCIDENTALLY happens to neatly agree with everything that was taught as doctrine taught years before you had the updated version. That doesn't strike you as a little to packaged, does it? How is it that before youre faith had an newly translated version you were able to actually know what the new translated version would have to say?

Probably because we've had the original Hebrew and Greek Bible for thousands of years, and found another original copy in 1947.... the dead sea scrolls. And since the New American Standard is the literal translation from the original manuscripts, we all knew what it would say. Just read the original Hebrew and Greek texts and the New American Standard is exactly that, word for word.

Your hypothetical is not flawed, it just doesn't exist from the christian point of view. A christian believes that if you seek you will find, so a christian believes that God WOULD intervene. Thats probably why he said that it is a flawed proposition. Matts missing the scripture where Jesus said that God watches out for the lame, the blind, the mute- I don't remember where it's at. So, in fact scriptually God says that your hypothetical would not take place. No man cometh to the father but by me- it's pretty clear what he is saying. Now, that scripture was talking about prayer, and God says he doesn't not hear the prayers of a sinner, which brings into question the very basis of Matts teaching because if in fact Matt is correct in his teachings then God is just making the whole I don't listen to sinners thing up.

This post is confusing to me Lois... Until this post, I figured that you and Matt's only disagreement was baptism for salvation or Bible version. But this post makes me think that you are in disagreement with God divinity as well. Please explain YOUR ideas on the bolded issue.

[Loismustdie 0]

Probably because we've had the original Hebrew and Greek Bible for thousands of years, and found another original copy in 1947.... the dead sea scrolls. And since the New American Standard is the literal translation from the original manuscripts, we all knew what it would say. Just read the original Hebrew and Greek texts and the New American Standard is exactly that, word for word.This post is confusing to me Lois... Until this post, I figured that you and Matt's only disagreement was baptism for salvation or Bible version. But this post makes me think that you are in disagreement with God divinity as well. Please explain YOUR ideas on the bolded issue.

My "ideas" are that it clearly states that God doesn't hear the prayers of a sinner, yet when it comes to asking Jesus into your heart this is done with a traditional sinners prayer- that's a problem that I am curious how the sinner overcomes. Baptism is the mechanism to wash ones sins away- since we know that no sin enters into heaven, then it stands to reason that baptism would be neccesary to gain entry into heaven. Salvation is more of a concept that is between you and God- everybody works on there salvation at there own pace, what they can handle, and only you and God know what that is. There is a plan of salvation- you know, basic ways to be that God lays out in scripture, things that he requires of you, and as you go deeper into yourself and christiany more is required from God. God grants eternal salvation unto all those who obey him. My goal, even before being a christian is to find out what God is telling me- through the scriptures. The KJV is the best version available- the teaching that Matt upholds have been around loooonnngg before his fave version and fave version seems to neatly wrap it up where the KJV could not, to the point that if a scripture in the KJV says something, well, actually it says something TOTTALY different, and those scholars that were around before Greek was a dead language, well, they were no good, and this stuff we have been saying for years before we had this new bible, well, it's the truth. That's the backwards way of finding truth, as a matter of fact thats how a liar works. Tell the lie, and then find a way to make it fit. I'm not calling Matt a liar, but I am saying that he has been lied to.

[Dhall901 0]

I've seldom been to church, I was one of those kids whose parents never pressed it upon them. I believe that any and every church (at least in our country) is a business selling a product to mindless individuals. That being said, I have a great faith in God. Honestly, it's more of a mano a mano type relationship. He's cool with it, i'm cool with it, I don't have to pass the collection plate or turn and greet all the strange people around me. In any event, I was under the impression that baptizing someone simply involves having their pastor say a few words and proceed to dunk them underwater. A little swim there..and you're right with God. The whole spectacle seems rather silly to me. It's basically a show for everyone else in the congregation, mass peer pressure. Personally I don't like getting dunked underwater, I'm sure God will understand.

[brvheart 1,752]

See my above post regarding why this is not the issue.Additionally, if it were the issue, then I would have the whole Bible to work with, along with 2000 years of theological writings, not just John 14:6Try againMonty

Why do 'writings' matter? Only the Bible matters, but as a Christian you already knew that.John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[BuffDan 0]

Why do 'writings' matter? Only the Bible matters, but as a Christian you already knew that.John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Isn't the bible just a collection of theolocical wrtitings a bunch of people put together in a book form? Why should it be different from other theological writing, assuming they too are inspired by God? I admit I am ignorant about the history of the bible, but the material in it had to come from somewhere, like letters from Paul to the Corinthians as an example. Or is God done inspiring writing for the rest of time?

[brvheart 1,752]

First off, to everyone on these boards...I think it would be better if we had a much nicer tone to our debates... I know we would all get along fabulously if we were just hanging out, so let's try to respect each other in how we speak... I've never felt like anyone has been particularly negative towards me personally, but the whole atmosphere of these religious boards is negativity. Just my 2 cents.

My "ideas" are that it clearly states that God doesn't hear the prayers of a sinner, yet when it comes to asking Jesus into your heart this is done with a traditional sinners prayer- that's a problem that I am curious how the sinner overcomes.

Cleary God has to hear the prayers of sinners, or else a person in a remote area couldn't ask God to bring someone to tell them about him... and we all know that that has happened? What is the biblical backup for saying that God never hears any prayers of sinners?

Baptism is the mechanism to wash ones sins away- since we know that no sin enters into heaven, then it stands to reason that baptism would be neccesary to gain entry into heaven.

I always thought that Jesus was the mechanism for washing my sins away... How does Ephesians 2:8-9 fit into your point of view... and what are your thoughts on speaking in tongues being a requirement for salvation, or being circumcised being a requirement for salvation? As there are groups that believe these things as well. :serious question:

Salvation is more of a concept that is between you and God- everybody works on their salvation at there own pace, what they can handle, and only you and God know what that is. There is a plan of salvation- you know, basic ways to be that God lays out in scripture, things that he requires of you, and as you go deeper into yourself and christiany more is required from God.

Again, how does this fit with Ephesians 2:8-9? I would give a different reference but that is the one that just scream contridiction to me.Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

God grants eternal salvation unto all those who obey him. My goal, even before being a christian is to find out what God is telling me- through the scriptures. The KJV is the best version available- the teaching that Matt upholds have been around loooonnngg before his fave version and fave version seems to neatly wrap it up where the KJV could not, to the point that if a scripture in the KJV says something, well, actually it says something TOTTALY different, and those scholars that were around before Greek was a dead language, well, they were no good, and this stuff we have been saying for years before we had this new bible, well, it's the truth.

That's the backwards way of finding truth, as a matter of fact thats how a liar works. Tell the lie, and then find a way to make it fit. I'm not calling Matt a liar, but I am saying that he has been lied to.

I don't think Wikipedia lied to Matt. But I'm sure what you're saying is that you disagree with Wikipedia... How do you know the the KJV is the best availiable literal translation? Maybe you think this: "Some Protestant groups believe that the newer versions of the Bible are based on corrupt manuscripts (Codices Aleph and B--Sinaiticus and Vatican), and that the King James Version is truer to the original languages.This preference is partially due to the fact that many modern versions often excise or marginalize certain verses deemed by proponents of the two questionable codices as later additions to the original text. Perhaps more importantly, many of the alterations made in later English translations make substantial, substantive changes to the meaning of New Testament texts. The changes tend to favor the more Modern evangelical beliefs of salvation at the expense of the older, more Calvanistic declarations of pre-destination and grace."Many scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the KJV as a questionable version of the Bible. They postulate that its interest lies chiefly in making the language poetic or streamlined and is done at the cost of accuracy in translation. Futhermore, it is a translation of a translation, rather than a re-examination of all available fragments of scripture used to produce a translation that is closer to the original languages of the Bible. Because of the lack of recent linguistic work, the KJV is regarded as a poor representation of the original Scripture. Many of today's leading exegetes (Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, Warren Carter, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and N.T. Wright) do not endorse the KJV for Masters or Doctoral-level exegetical work.The Most Literal Translation Availiable

[Mattnxtc 0]

My "ideas" are that it clearly states that God doesn't hear the prayers of a sinner, yet when it comes to asking Jesus into your heart this is done with a traditional sinners prayer- that's a problem that I am curious how the sinner overcomes. Baptism is the mechanism to wash ones sins away- since we know that no sin enters into heaven, then it stands to reason that baptism would be neccesary to gain entry into heaven. Salvation is more of a concept that is between you and God- everybody works on there salvation at there own pace, what they can handle, and only you and God know what that is. There is a plan of salvation- you know, basic ways to be that God lays out in scripture, things that he requires of you, and as you go deeper into yourself and christiany more is required from God. God grants eternal salvation unto all those who obey him. My goal, even before being a christian is to find out what God is telling me- through the scriptures. The KJV is the best version available- the teaching that Matt upholds have been around loooonnngg before his fave version and fave version seems to neatly wrap it up where the KJV could not, to the point that if a scripture in the KJV says something, well, actually it says something TOTTALY different, and those scholars that were around before Greek was a dead language, well, they were no good, and this stuff we have been saying for years before we had this new bible, well, it's the truth. That's the backwards way of finding truth, as a matter of fact thats how a liar works. Tell the lie, and then find a way to make it fit. I'm not calling Matt a liar, but I am saying that he has been lied to.

The teachings that I uphold come straight from the greek. Why do I know this? B/c I use the greek and the NASB which is the most literal translation yo uwill find. It is far and away better than the KJV in terms of greek. Heck you can translate to greek from the KJV and youll find that the NASB does a better job. But you dont want to live in reality b/c then you may have to admit your wrong.

[FullMontyM1 0]

Why do 'writings' matter? Only the Bible matters, but as a Christian you already knew that.John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The "writings" matter because the Bible is composed of words and words are ALWAYS subject to interpretation. We can not definitively give a particular verse a particular meaning without interpretation, and the best way to do that is to review the collective interpretations over the past 2000 years, apply our own logic and reason, and produce our -best- interpretation possible.I already pointed out the necessity of interpretation of words with the simple sentence:"My name is John"The most obvious choice, without any extra context, is, that the individual who made that statement has a first name, and that name is John.But we cannot automatically assume the obvious choice is the correct choice. The speaker's first name may well be John, but John may be his middle name, John may be his last name, he may be speaking metaphorically (ie "I am Spartacus" in the movie Spartacus), and there may be other interpretations of the statement, depending on the context.The best we can say, is that:If the speaker is not lying, and he is not using a rhetorical device, then one of the speaker's names is John, and it is most likely that the speaker's first name is John.The Bible is filled with countless phrases, who's meaning is much less straight-forward than the statement, "My name is John."Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in order to understand the Bible. If we must interpret the Bible, we would be foolish to do so while ignoring the 2000 years of interpretation that came before.Even if we disagree with earlier interpretations, we are still better served by taking those earlier interpretations into account when making our own interpretation.Monty

[gobears 0]

Isn't the bible just a collection of theolocical wrtitings a bunch of people put together in a book form? Why should it be different from other theological writing, assuming they too are inspired by God? I admit I am ignorant about the history of the bible, but the material in it had to come from somewhere, like letters from Paul to the Corinthians as an example. Or is God done inspiring writing for the rest of time?

Here's a link to the formation of the Bible as we know it Today.Who decided on the books of the bibleLooks like the Old Testament was "finalized" in 90AD (could have been earlier according to the article)The New Testament was "finalized" starting in 367ADIn terms of your question, Buffdan about God "inspiring" writing, that's why we have so many offshoots of Christianity Today (many different interpretations).

[Loismustdie 0]

First off, to everyone on these boards...I think it would be better if we had a much nicer tone to our debates... I know we would all get along fabulously if we were just hanging out, so let's try to respect each other in how we speak... I've never felt like anyone has been particularly negative towards me personally, but the whole atmosphere of these religious boards is negativity. Just my 2 cents. Cleary God has to hear the prayers of sinners, or else a person in a remote area couldn't ask God to bring someone to tell them about him... and we all know that that has happened? What is the biblical backup for saying that God never hears any prayers of sinners? I always thought that Jesus was the mechanism for washing my sins away... How does Ephesians 2:8-9 fit into your point of view... and what are your thoughts on speaking in tongues being a requirement for salvation, or being circumcised being a requirement for salvation? As there are groups that believe these things as well. :serious question: Again, how does this fit with Ephesians 2:8-9? I would give a different reference but that is the one that just scream contridction to me.Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. I don't think Wikipedia lied to Matt. But I'm sure what you're saying is that you disagree with Wikipedia... How do you know the the KJV is the best availiable literal translation? Maybe you think this: "Some Protestant groups believe that the newer versions of the Bible are based on corrupt manuscripts (Codices Aleph and B--Sinaiticus and Vatican), and that the King James Version is truer to the original languages.This preference is partially due to the fact that many modern versions often excise or marginalize certain verses deemed by proponents of the two questionable codices as later additions to the original text. Perhaps more importantly, many of the alterations made in later English translations make substantial, substantive changes to the meaning of New Testament texts. The changes tend to favor the more Modern evangelical beliefs of salvation at the expense of the older, more Calvanistic declarations of pre-destination and grace."Many scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the KJV as a questionable version of the Bible. They postulate that its interest lies chiefly in making the language poetic or streamlined and is done at the cost of accuracy in translation. Futhermore, it is a translation of a translation, rather than a re-examination of all available fragments of scripture used to produce a translation that is closer to the original languages of the Bible. Because of the lack of recent linguistic work, the KJV is regarded as a poor representation of the original Scripture. Many of today's leading exegetes (Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, Warren Carter, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and N.T. Wright) do not endorse the KJV for Masters or Doctoral-level exegetical work.The Most Literal Translation Availiable

John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners, but if any man be a worshipper of God him he heareth. When the KJV was done the world had available to them scholars that could do it- we no longer have this available, because when it comes to the original documents, fragments, etc, they are dead dialects of the languages that was being used. Meaning, I still maintain that the KJV is a better translation based on a few things. One, the work that was put into it, and the reasonings for it. King James wanted the Bible, which he believed to be the word of God, available to all and not just the few who could understand these dead languages. It had nothing to do with doctrine, more politics than anything else, because the Bible had been kept under lock and key by catholic hierarchy for a very long time. The KJV was regarded, and still is by many, as the best translation available, and it is the one that started it all. So, I have got to believe that when God utilized King James God watched over and made sure that those scholars got it right. I doubt that God decided that it would be fun to mess with the people and release a version that the people would finally be able to read, but it was wronmg, and doctinally flawed. If you believe that the bible is inspired by God and God is the driving force behind it by default you would have to have faith that or at least hope he bothered to watch over the process. Enter now, however many years later and there are thousands of versions available, but only one which has stood the test of time as it were- the KJV. So, now you want me to believe that this new version is better even when it blatantly contradicts the KJV on many key points of doctrine, and then toss out hundreds of years worth of faith in the KJV and faith that God watched over his book? At that point, I would have to be ready to denounce faith in God at all- what kind of God would pull that kind of trick? Heres my word- hundreds of years later-ooops, those guys were terrible!! Heres the ACTUAL word. Denouncing faith is not neccesary though because I understand what is going on. Wolves in sheeps clothing, thats all, and its not hard to realize that when said new version neatly wraps up teachings that blatantly contradict the KJV with convoluted explanations that make any sensible person go..." What?", its not hard to realize what the aganda was when said version was made. So, what it comes down to is that I would have to denounce my belief in God if I were to turn away from the KJV. Matt will at this point come in and in a disdaneful tone say that at that point I am putting my faith in a man, and not God, which contradicts himself, because on some level we had to have faith in man to start off with because in fact, the Bible was penned by men. So, the question is this- faith with men with an agenda or faith in a man who just wanted too, and had the power to, get the Bible to the people. Faith that God wasnt messing with the public for years, or belief that he is capable of getting an accurate document to his people? In my mind the choice is easy.Oh, and by the way, Jesus blood does wash away your sin- where is it found, how do you get to the blood?(figuratively) Find those scriptures and you will have answered your own questions.

[brvheart 1,752]

The "writings" matter because the Bible is composed of words and words are ALWAYS subject to interpretation. We can not definitively give a particular verse a particular meaning without interpretation, and the best way to do that is to review the collective interpretations over the past 2000 years, apply our own logic and reason, and produce our -best- interpretation possible.I already pointed out the necessity of interpretation of words with the simple sentence:"My name is John"The most obvious choice, without any extra context, is, that the individual who made that statement has a first name, and that name is John.But we cannot automatically assume the obvious choice is the correct choice. The speaker's first name may well be John, but John may be his middle name, John may be his last name, he may be speaking metaphorically (ie "I am Spartacus" in the movie Spartacus), and there may be other interpretations of the statement, depending on the context.The best we can say, is that:If the speaker is not lying, and he is not using a rhetorical device, then one of the speaker's names is John, and it is most likely that the speaker's first name is John.The Bible is filled with countless phrases, who's meaning is much less straight-forward than the statement, "My name is John."Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in order to understand the Bible. If we must interpret the Bible, we would be foolish to do so while ignoring the 2000 years of interpretation that came before.Even if we disagree with earlier interpretations, we are still better served by taking those earlier interpretations into account when making our own interpretation.Monty

Although what you've said it true about any given statement... it is NOT true of the Bible... since it is the inspired word of God. What the Bible says it means.

[brvheart 1,752]

John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners, but if any man be a worshipper of God him he heareth

So how do you relate this in your own mind, when you say that God hears the sinners' prayer?

When the KJV was done the world had available to them scholars that could do it- we no longer have this available, because when it comes to the original documents, fragments, etc, they are dead dialects of the languages that was being used. Meaning, I still maintain that the KJV is a better translation based on a few things. One, the work that was put into it, and the reasonings for it. King James wanted the Bible, which he believed to be the word of God, available to all and not just the few who could understand these dead languages. It had nothing to do with doctrine, more politics than anything else, because the Bible had been kept under lock and key by catholic hierarchy for a very long time.

"Though often referred to as the King James Version, the only active part King James took in the translation was lifting the criminal (death) penalty attached to its translation and setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process (such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes)."

The KJV was regarded, and still is by many, as the best translation available,

"Many scholars working with Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew versions regard the KJV as a questionable version of the Bible. They postulate that its interest lies chiefly in making the language poetic or streamlined and is done at the cost of accuracy in translation. Futhermore, it is a translation of a translation, rather than a re-examination of all available fragments of scripture used to produce a translation that is closer to the original languages of the Bible. Because of the lack of recent linguistic work, the KJV is regarded as a poor representation of the original Scripture. Many of today's leading exegetes (Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, Warren Carter, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, and N.T. Wright) do not endorse the KJV for Masters or Doctoral-level exegetical work."Although..."some Protestant groups believe that the newer versions of the Bible are based on corrupt manuscripts (Codices Aleph and B--Sinaiticus and Vatican), and that the King James Version is truer to the original languages."Which I assume is you.

and it is the one that started it all. So, I have got to believe that when God utilized King James God watched over and made sure that those scholars got it right. I doubt that God decided that it would be fun to mess with the people and release a version that the people would finally be able to read, but it was wronmg, and doctinally flawed. If you believe that the bible is inspired by God and God is the driving force behind it by default you would have to have faith that or at least hope he bothered to watch over the process.

I agree with you. I own several King James Bibles.. and I believe that it is absolutely the word of God.

Enter now, however many years later and there are thousands of versions available, but only one which has stood the test of time as it were- the KJV. So, now you want me to believe that this new version is better even when it blatantly contradicts the KJV on many key points of doctrine, and then toss out hundreds of years worth of faith in the KJV and faith that God watched over his book?

Please explain the blatant contradictions. And I assume that you think that the dead sea scrolls are faulty even though they were written 1600 years prior to the King James Version?"The Dead Sea scrolls comprise roughly 800 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran (near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea). The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they are practically the only known surviving Biblical documents written before AD 100."

At that point, I would have to be ready to denounce faith in God at all- what kind of God would pull that kind of trick? Heres my word- hundreds of years later-ooops, those guys were terrible!! Heres the ACTUAL word. Denouncing faith is not neccesary though because I understand what is going on. Wolves in sheeps clothing, thats all, and its not hard to realize that when said new version neatly wraps up teachings that blatantly contradict the KJV with convoluted explanations that make any sensible person go..." What?", its not hard to realize what the aganda was when said version was made.

I'm a Christian and I love Jesus... I'm not part of a vast conspiracy to disprove the KJV. I just know, because of the dead sea scrolls that the NASV is a more literal word for word translation... and I don't see how that is bad. I guess I need to understand these 'blantant contridictions'.

So, what it comes down to is that I would have to denounce my belief in God if I were to turn away from the KJV. Matt will at this point come in and in a disdaneful tone say that at that point I am putting my faith in a man, and not God, which contradicts himself, because on some level we had to have faith in man to start off with because in fact, the Bible was penned by men. So, the question is this- faith with men with an agenda or faith in a man who just wanted too, and had the power to, get the Bible to the people. Faith that God wasnt messing with the public for years, or belief that he is capable of getting an accurate document to his people?

So how did people become born again before 1610?EDIT: For some weird reason I have lost the ability to quote.

[FullMontyM1 0]

Although what you've said it true about any given statement... it is NOT true of the Bible... since it is the inspired word of God. What the Bible says it means.

Obviously what God says is what he means, but that doesn't solve the problem of figuring out what he has said. How can you not see this? Even the most literalist interpretation of the words in Bible leaves HUGE swaths of uncertainty.Monty

[brvheart 1,752]

Obviously what God says is what he means, but that doesn't solve the problem of figuring out what he has said. How can you not see this? Even the most literalist interpretation of the words in Bible leaves HUGE swaths of uncertainty.Monty

What parts are you uncertain about? I will explain them to you.

[FullMontyM1 0]

What parts are you uncertain about? I will explain them to you.

Wow. Wow. Thank you for making my point.Monty

[Mattnxtc 0]

What parts are you uncertain about? I will explain them to you.

What you have to realize is that there are people in the world who want the bible to fit their needs. They dont want to change their ways or views b/c of the bible. So the stuff that "doesnt fit" is a result of them not being able to make the bible fit what they want it to fit. Its why we get mormonism and these other cults. People cannot accept what the bible says b/c the bible is harsh. It doesnt paint a pretty picture for people who dont believe and some cant accept that.

[FullMontyM1 0]

What you have to realize is that there are people in the world who want the bible to fit their needs. They dont want to change their ways or views b/c of the bible. So the stuff that "doesnt fit" is a result of them not being able to make the bible fit what they want it to fit. Its why we get mormonism and these other cults. People cannot accept what the bible says b/c the bible is harsh. It doesnt paint a pretty picture for people who dont believe and some cant accept that.

What you don't understand is that the Bible is filled with words and words require human interpretation, unless you claim that God has given you the exact interpretation, directly, then you can't deny the need to interpret them.How do you guys not get this? I really don't understand your thinking at all.Monty

[brvheart 1,752]

What parts are you uncertain about? I will explain them to you.

From a literal sense is what I meant. I find nothing in the Bible difficult to understand, speaking from a Christian point of view. There are a lot of ideas in the Bible that I do believe would be hard to understand from an unbelievers perspective, like pain, and why anyone would go to hell... but that's not what I'm talking about.

What you don't understand is that the Bible is filled with words and words require human interpretation, unless you claim that God has given you the exact interpretation, directly, then you can't deny the need to interpret them.How do you guys not get this? I really don't understand your thinking at all.Monty

I do claim this has happened... it's the Bible... John 1:1.

[Mattnxtc 0]

What you don't understand is that the Bible is filled with words and words require human interpretation, unless you claim that God has given you the exact interpretation, directly, then you can't deny the need to interpret them.How do you guys not get this? I really don't understand your thinking at all.Monty

Yes when you want to bring worldly ideas to the bible yes you can put what you want in some interpretations. But when you stick to what the bible says this isnt a problem and that is the main problem i see in you. You want it to be universal. Well I am sorry to disappoint you but the bible has always been exclusive from the very start. It has never mentioned that all will be saved. In fact we see the very opposite. A very small section will be saved. The bible predicts it, Jesus said it and we see it. Its the reality of the bible which you choose to ignore.

[FullMontyM1 0]

This has nothing to do with a discussion regarding the Bible being universal.This has to do with the fact that most words in the English language have:1) At a minimum, different shades of meaning;2) Sometimes two meanings;3) Sometimes more than two meanings;If you claim that God tells you what the proper interpretation of the words is, well that's not something I can argue with.If you do not claim that God tells you what the proper interpretation of the words is, then it is clear the words must be interpreted.Finally, why did God give us the abilities necessary to interpret the Bible (logical reasoning, analytical reasoning, reading comprehension, etc.) but not intend for us to use them?Monty