(November 5, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Drich Wrote:

(November 5, 2015 at 4:18 pm)robvalue Wrote: If it's at all corrupted, and not the perfect word of god, then every sentence stands or falls on its own merit.

again lazy person who obvious could not even bother to read what he feels he can expertly comment on from a blind...

I am not questioning the scripture. I am question the ethics of a person who literally takes 1/2 a verse from one part of the bible and puts it together with several other verses source from other chapters or books and then represents them as being a doctrinal teaching of Paul. This is dishonest in all fields of study, yet people like you are on her side? How messed up is that?

what I did fix all of this was to first identify all the verse scraps she butchered out of context and simply read the context. from this 95% of her work came undone/show to be wrong. I used the bible in it's completed form to disprove her work not call it into question.

how could i possibly butcher the bible more than it already has been over the centuries through different translations and rewording adding and subtracting its not reliable at all now .... you yourself said that the original had been mistranslated what christians have now is not the same as the original text so what christianity has now is corrupted word of God dont you agree then that christians need to give up the modern translations and go back to the original text in greek ?

---

(November 5, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I am not questioning the scripture.

You should.  Explains how you are so easily conned.

wait didnt he just tell us that we should question scripture that is in the modern bibles since its different than what in in the original greek ?

You should not pay attention to a single word drippy says.  He's an asshole.

(November 5, 2015 at 5:33 pm)Drich Wrote:

(November 5, 2015 at 5:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: you yourself said that the original had been mistranslated what christians have now is not the same as the original text so what christianity has now is corrupted word of God

Nope.

you want to try again?

I remember telling you that our use of the a word in English is not always the same as a word we translate from. so we have to go back to whatever the original word is to make sure we are using it correctly IF It Seems To Contradict Something Else Written!

THIS IS TRUE OF ALL TRANSLATED MATERAL! Not Just the Bible.

Example in the greek their are 5 words with 5 different meaning that we in the English translate as just the one word 'love.'

Each greek word describes a completely different aspect of our word love, yet when translated these differences are not communicated unless one knows context, region, and culture which again is not communicated in a simple literal translation (which most bibles are.)

That is why so many of you foolishly Think God loves everyone. When in truth God Agape' the world. Agape' is conditional, it's based on respect for God. but 'love' in the English is a 'feeling' that can change, but is forever, that has boundries, but at the same time is limitless.

So in short I did not question the bible. I question your reading of it. You read it and by cutting, pasting and assigning your definations to english words that are supposed to repersent koine greek make it say whatever you want. I question that.

yes like i said modern christianity at the very least is not correct because it does not follow the original greek christians do not investigate the original noone does that they just listen to their preacher who has it wrong because the book he learned from and his teachers are wrong its been a long long time since people went by the original greek translation . thats what corruption is

corruption: the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.

And that's just the ones that actually read it at all.

Did I mention about the baby eating part?

(November 5, 2015 at 6:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: And that's just the ones that actually read it at all.

Did I mention about the baby eating part?

yes ask him about the verse about eating babies , im sure he will just say its not to be taken literally isnt it interesting that some things are interpreted literally and other verses are just symbolic and everyone has a different opinion about what is literal and what is not to be taken literally ( old testament teaching to discriminate against gays literal both then and today, old testament teaching about eating babies (or shrimp) is symbolic and/or just specifically for the audience at that time )    if interpretation was at least consistent maybe it could be taken more seriously

Drich cares jack shit about context. Now he's preaching about it?

drich do you interpret all of the bible literally or do you just pick and choose what is literal and what isnt literal?

The latter I reckon, he's the awkward type of theist.

P.S. Jenny we can chat some more today if you want.

(November 5, 2015 at 6:39 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: drich do you interpret all of the bible literally or do you just pick and choose what is literal and what isnt literal?

Don't bother. He's also one who presented homosexuality as a choice. The evidence being that someone wanted to rent him at a truck stop and he said no. So for him it obviously was a choice, since he could work in the rent boy business any time he wants.

So, don't take that diatribe too seriously.

(November 5, 2015 at 6:39 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: drich do you interpret all of the bible literally or do you just pick and choose what is literal and what isnt literal?

The Bible is too incoherent to be wholly taken literally.