Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 19, 2018 at 3:51 am)Godscreated Wrote: Titus 1: 13-14 (ESV) ...Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.
This is for Christians who are listening to wrong teaching. When you use the related verse it makes sense.
This one is for you.
Titus 1:15 (ESV) ..... but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and consciences are defiled.
However you got that out of those verses just befuddles me, your understanding of scripture is completely deplorable and useless.
GC
GC,
You are just too damn funny!!
Please get a clue before discussing the Bible because your ignorance makes you look like you're an imbecile.
How could you possibly come to such a conclusion when you know nothing about the scriptures, you have been shown to be completely inept at understanding the scriptures, and after this post I believe I'll be finished with you in this thread because it's gotten to nothing more than name calling.
WoG Wrote:The Apocrypha was an integral part of the Bible until the 1880s when two Englishmen, Westcott and Hort, decided to dump it. So, as routinely happens, their malcontent group wrote a new Bible version and did not include the Apocrypha books. Your precious Protestant Bible is essentially a fake Bible because it omits a significant portion of the original Bible that had been used by everyone since its inception in the 690s.
The Apocrypha was put into the Catholic Bible around the 1500's because of the protestant reformation, those books were not in the 690s Bible. Those books are full of errors and were put into the Catholic Bible to support their wrong practices, practices that are found only in the Catholic Church and practices that are not supported by any other part of the Bible. Are you saying the catholic Church is everyone, doesn't surprise me seeing you believe the Apocrypha was part of the original Bible. Even the Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as Holy text. You just keep digging that hole of yours deeper and deeper, soon you want be able to get out.
WoG Wrote:The Protestant Bible that you like has only been in existence for about 132 years.
I like several different translations and I know you have quoted out of the more modern translations before, so why if you consider them bad. Then you would consider anything about God bad and thus your bias shows off as ignorance .... no it is ignorance. The modern translations I like still come from the Hebrew and Greek writings and use the Latin and King James also to come to a better translation, one more suitable for today's language. I've explained this to you before and you just ignored it and I'm tired of going around in circles with you, you look only to stir things up into an argument that leads nowhere and I'm ending this one tonight. Waste your time writing a response I don't care because I will not read it. If you cared to learn that might be different, but you are just wanting to waste time.
WoG Wrote:Now there's a couple of ways you can discover that fact for yourself. The first is to read news articles and the other way is to read old Bibles written before the 1880s and the Bible history.
You may not do it but will you please stop including every damn post in your replies? It's a pain in the ass to respond to your rambling posts that include a lot of junk. Part of the problem is the way the forum software works but sometimes it's a good idea to wait until another poster comments before adding on to your first comment.
You think I haven't learned about the Bible's history, believe what you like, I've shown you where you make numerous mistakes. As for the way I post you are no different and I do not have all day to wait on people from around the world. I got on the forum just a little while ago and had 22 alerts and nearly half are from you.
GC[/quote]
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Please get a clue before discussing the Bible because your ignorance makes you look like you're an imbecile.
How could you possibly come to such a conclusion when you know nothing about the scriptures, you have been shown to be completely inept at understanding the scriptures, and after this post I believe I'll be finished with you in this thread because it's gotten to nothing more than name calling.
WoG Wrote:The Apocrypha was an integral part of the Bible until the 1880s when two Englishmen, Westcott and Hort, decided to dump it. So, as routinely happens, their malcontent group wrote a new Bible version and did not include the Apocrypha books. Your precious Protestant Bible is essentially a fake Bible because it omits a significant portion of the original Bible that had been used by everyone since its inception in the 690s.
Quote:The Apocrypha was put into the Catholic Bible around the 1500's because of the protestant reformation, those books were not in the 690s Bible. Those books are full of errors and were put into the Catholic Bible to support their wrong practices, practices that are found only in the Catholic Church and practices that are not supported by any other part of the Bible. Are you saying the catholic Church is everyone, doesn't surprise me seeing you believe the Apocrypha was part of the original Bible. Even the Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as Holy text. You just keep digging that hole of yours deeper and deeper, soon you want be able to get out.
WoG Wrote:The Protestant Bible that you like has only been in existence for about 132 years.
I like several different translations and I know you have quoted out of the more modern translations before, so why if you consider them bad. Then you would consider anything about God bad and thus your bias shows off as ignorance .... no it is ignorance. The modern translations I like still come from the Hebrew and Greek writings and use the Latin and King James also to come to a better translation, one more suitable for today's language. I've explained this to you before and you just ignored it and I'm tired of going around in circles with you, you look only to stir things up into an argument that leads nowhere and I'm ending this one tonight. Waste your time writing a response I don't care because I will not read it. If you cared to learn that might be different, but you are just wanting to waste time.
WoG Wrote:Now there's a couple of ways you can discover that fact for yourself. The first is to read news articles and the other way is to read old Bibles written before the 1880s and the Bible history.
You may not do it but will you please stop including every damn post in your replies? It's a pain in the ass to respond to your rambling posts that include a lot of junk. Part of the problem is the way the forum software works but sometimes it's a good idea to wait until another poster comments before adding on to your first comment.
You think I haven't learned about the Bible's history, believe what you like, I've shown you where you make numerous mistakes. As for the way I post you are no different and I do not have all day to wait on people from around the world. I got on the forum just a little while ago and had 22 alerts and nearly half are from you.
GC
As I've pointed out, you can do your own research and you will see that the Apocrypha was an integral part of every Bible until the 1880s. That's when the Protestant Bible (the condensed version of the original Bible) was created.
Based upon your reluctance to to be intellectually honest I see no further point in discussing anything with you. But if you are honest and do some research and post that I was right and you were wrong then I will continue to discus issues with you.
This is strictly a verifiable historical issue. There's nothing fishy or deceitful about it. So do your research and you will learn something.
(February 20, 2018 at 1:01 am)Godscreated Wrote: How could you possibly come to such a conclusion when you know nothing about the scriptures, you have been shown to be completely inept at understanding the scriptures, and after this post I believe I'll be finished with you in this thread because it's gotten to nothing more than name calling.[/hide]
I like several different translations and I know you have quoted out of the more modern translations before, so why if you consider them bad. Then you would consider anything about God bad and thus your bias shows off as ignorance .... no it is ignorance. The modern translations I like still come from the Hebrew and Greek writings and use the Latin and King James also to come to a better translation, one more suitable for today's language. I've explained this to you before and you just ignored it and I'm tired of going around in circles with you, you look only to stir things up into an argument that leads nowhere and I'm ending this one tonight. Waste your time writing a response I don't care because I will not read it. If you cared to learn that might be different, but you are just wanting to waste time.
You think I haven't learned about the Bible's history, believe what you like, I've shown you where you make numerous mistakes. As for the way I post you are no different and I do not have all day to wait on people from around the world. I got on the forum just a little while ago and had 22 alerts and nearly half are from you.
GC
As I've pointed out, you can do your own research and you will see that the Apocrypha was an integral part of every Bible until the 1880s. That's when the Protestant Bible (the condensed version of the original Bible) was created.
Based upon your reluctance to to be intellectually honest I see no further point in discussing anything with you. But if you are honest and do some research and post that I was right and you were wrong then I will continue to discus issues with you.
This is strictly a verifiable historical issue. There's nothing fishy or deceitful about it. So do your research and you will learn something.
You are not a very good student of Bible history, the protestant Bible was out long before 1880. I have learned about Bible history and know the Apocrypha was not a part of the Bible translations used by the protestants and I'm speaking of pre-1880. The Catholic Bible used the Apocrypha and it was put there only after the protestant reformation, you are terribly mistaken about dates and Bibles, it's not me who needs to study the history it's you. As far as being intellectually honest I have been, it's you who left out what I said about the Apocrypha in my last post, hiding parts of posts to make yourself look correct is deceitful and intellectually dishonest. I'm glad you want to end this nonsense of your's I'm tired of seeing things from you that are not true.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
February 22, 2018 at 4:50 am (This post was last modified: February 22, 2018 at 4:50 am by Jehanne.)
GC,
You are "ignorance on parade":
Quote:Apocrypha are well attested in surviving manuscripts of the Christian Bible. (See, for example, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate, and Peshitta.) After the Lutheran and Catholic canons were defined by Luther (c. 1534) and Trent[23] (8 April 1546) respectively, early Protestant editions of the Bible (notably the Luther Bible in German and 1611 King James Version in English) did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status.
Quote:Apocrypha are well attested in surviving manuscripts of the Christian Bible. (See, for example, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate, and Peshitta.) After the Lutheran and Catholic canons were defined by Luther (c. 1534) and Trent[23] (8 April 1546) respectively, early Protestant editions of the Bible (notably the Luther Bible in German and 1611 King James Version in English) did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status.