Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedDave
I do. My point should be obvious. With your propensity to pick and choose which Scripture belongs in the cannon, how and more importantly, WHY do you believe the Titus passage? On what basis do you keep this passage and question the validity of others?
As I've said before, you keep the Scriptures that you 'like' and state that the ones that seemingly conflict with YOUR ideas about God are mis-translated. Please tell me how do you know that the Titus passage is not mistranslated?
Marcion lives!
|
By the same reasoning, Dave, do you apply every KJV translated English word exactly as we use it today? I don't question the word of God, I only question the way words and phrases are translated, which make them appear to say something that contradicts the nature of God.
All translations are filtered through the lenses of the translator.
Example: (
II Sam 24:1) "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, 'Go number Isreal and Judah' ".
What's wrong with this picture? God is not unrighteous. Some would say, "Well if God is doing it, it is not unrighteous." Balogna!! Balderdash!!!
Unrighteousness is evil no matter who is doing it. If you disagree with this statement, then we have no further reason for discussion.
Now I don't believe God would be either righteous or just, if He had moved David to take a census of Israel, just so He could get angry send judgment on them.
That's the same argument that God hardened Pharoah's heart just so He could judge him. I just don't believe it, even though KJV says that He did.
That's the same argument about God closing the eyes of the people so they could not be healed. I have already posted on this thread how Jesus' own words, quoting from the Septuagint Version disproved the KJV.
It is a similar argument, that God made a man blind from birth, for forty years, just so He could heal him.
God is not unrighteous, and if KJV say's He is, then I just let God be true and every man a liar.
"He that doeth righteousness is righteous". By inverse reasoning, you could deduce that "He that doeth unrighteousness, is unrighteous." A better rendering of this
might be:
" He that is righteous, doeth righteousness.", and, by inversion: "He that is unrighteous, doeth unrighteousness". (B-LRV)