__________________
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)
Scripture is its own interpreter. Nothing can cut a diamond but a diamond. Nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture" Thomas Watson.
Some day in the future, when the church** has more deeply accepted gays and has extended more of the churches' social institutions to gays, the church** will claim, "The Christian church merely fixed itself as it often has, for example, as it did concerning slavery and women's rights." Secularists and atheists will claim, "No, the conscience of the developing world forced itself upon you, and now you more closely agree with secular morality, that's all."
**referring to the nominal Christian church, not those on AFF who have the true and reliable access to the mind of your God.
Not sure which version of the Bible you got this from but in the KJV it reads different.
8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
Jesus said, "yet" Did not say he wasn't going at all, just not with them at that time.
King James was an interesting character - he would have slipped smoothly into this thread.
Some really cool stuff about James:
At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
Throughout his youth, James was praised for his chastity, since he showed little interest in women. After the loss of Lennox, he continued to prefer male company
Although the title page of The King James Bible boasted that it was "newly translated out of the original tongues," the work was actually a revision of The Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was a revision of The Great Bible of 1539, which was itself based on three previous English translations from the early 1500s. So, the men who produced the King James Bible not only inherited some of the errors made by previous English translators, but invented some of their own.
"I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else," James announced to his councilors, "and more than you who are here assembled." He compared his love for the earl to Jesus's affection for the "beloved disciple" John. "Jesus Christ did the same," the king said, "and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
Summary: King James was a bit of a tittler.
To answer your question - I used the Young's literal translation which I assume, being literal, did not add the odd jot or tittle to guide one into what the tittler is SURE the original author probably meant.
King James was an interesting character - he would have slipped smoothly into this thread.
Some really cool stuff about James:
At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
Throughout his youth, James was praised for his chastity, since he showed little interest in women. After the loss of Lennox, he continued to prefer male company
Although the title page of The King James Bible boasted that it was "newly translated out of the original tongues," the work was actually a revision of The Bishop's Bible of 1568, which was a revision of The Great Bible of 1539, which was itself based on three previous English translations from the early 1500s. So, the men who produced the King James Bible not only inherited some of the errors made by previous English translators, but invented some of their own.
"I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else," James announced to his councilors, "and more than you who are here assembled." He compared his love for the earl to Jesus's affection for the "beloved disciple" John. "Jesus Christ did the same," the king said, "and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
Summary: King James was a bit of a tittler.
To answer your question - I used the Young's literal translation which I assume, being literal, did not add the odd jot or tittle to guide one into what the tittler is SURE the original author probably meant.
As a further rebuttal, consider that EVEN IF James was a sodomite, it does not impugn the translation he authorized, anymore than the fact that a pagan king authorized the rebuilding of the Temple (in fact, TWICE, once by Cyrus, and again by Herod).
Timmy,
According to the bible, the devil can blind us, correct?
II Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not...
(Sidebar) Does that blinding happen BEFORE the potential unbeliever decides to not believe? If so, that blinding should be very, very effective in all cases. But if the blinding happens after the unbeliever decides to not believe, that's redundant effort, considering the devil already gets to claim the souls of unbelievers.
Yet, as if that's not sufficient super-blinding power, our BEST FRIEND in the whole heaven can also blind us, especially if we already deserve it.
John 9:39 "For judgment I am come into the world...that they which see might be made blind. " John 12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see..." (JC quoting Isaiah)
Additionally, as if we needed a third blinding force on top of the first two blinding forces, our own human failures also cause blindness, according to writer of II Peter. He claims that to have not achieved these attributes of good character amounts to BLINDNESS. So we had better not be lacking in the following--
1) diligence
2) faith
3) virtue
4) knowledge
5) temperance
6) patience
7) godliness
8) brotherly kindness
9) charity
"HE THAT LACKETH THESE THINGS IS BLIND..." (II Pet. 1:9)
So, with so many vested interests (the devil, the god, and our fleshly nature) all awaiting their proper roles toward blinding us, it's a wonder anyone is ever able to pin the tail on the donkey. Dizzy much?
Key of G, please....
Amazing brain,
How sweet the sound,
that saved a wretch like me,
I once was lost,
But now I'm found...
WAS blind, but now I see!
I think this is precisely what you do not accept and that is why you have left the way. You do not like the unpleasant parts of the Bible and therefore you have decided that they are not true, and that has given you the excuse to abandon the way.
.
Quite wrong. I had no problem with eternal torture when I was a bible believer (for 30 years or so.) It was a given that I was not accountable for God's "mysterious ways", although I did accept personal responsibility to spread "the Truth" to others. But never as a believer did I sit in judgment of the existence of hell, or anything else in the bible (which is kinda the definition of true believer, no?) I quit (over period of another cautious 10 years) only after I couldn't believe, based mostly on results of reading the bible (and about the bible) more deeply than what preachers, Sunday school, and Wednesday evening church classes fed me. IOW, I quit for intellectual reasons, and not (as Christians ignorantly accuse) due to "a rebellious spirit" or "desire to sin" or other typical claims that reveal more about the Christian making the judgment than the person they actually do not understand. Today, I enjoy picking on the silliness of Hell (and other issues) because it's such low hanging fruit, and should be one of the places to trigger increase of cognitive dissonance in someone's mind and heart, that is, if the person is ready to think critically, which most believers are not (almost by definition.)
Without my god glasses on, it's so clear how deluded I was for 30 years--to have believed so much with such poor evidence. Emotional neediness does that to a person.
I quit (over period of another cautious 10 years) only after I couldn't believe, based mostly on results of reading the bible (and about the bible) more deeply than what preachers, Sunday school, and Wednesday evening church classes fed me. IOW, I quit for intellectual reasons,
if the person is ready to think critically, which most believers are not (almost by definition.)
Without my god glasses on, it's so clear how deluded I was for 30 years--to have believed so much with such poor evidence. Emotional neediness does that to a person.
That is right you quit, but do you realize that people have quit not believing after reading the Bible, former atheists have given the same reason you have given, so it works both ways.
You say that you quit for intellectual reasons, really?
pardon to be skeptical about your reasons, but I know plenty of intellectuals who are believers, (I know of one who is a nuclear scientist) and it doesn't conflict with their intellect.
What do you consider thinking critically? In other words you basically equate belief with not thinking critically, isn't that an uncritical way of thinking?
You have a right to feel that you were deluded, that is your right, but saying that there is poor evidence does not compute, for there are tons of archeological and textual evidence for the Bible, there is more evidence for belief in Christianity than for anything else in real history, so I do not buy the poor evidence argument.
Emotional neediness? well we humans are emotional, it is part of our make up, we get angry, happy, sad, depressed, and all the other range of emotions.
We all are emotionally needy, it is just a matter of how we decide to fill that emotional need. Some fill their emotional need thru church activities while others do it through other means.
I have no problem feeding my emotional neediness thru God and my family.
__________________
**Original Matthew 28:19 Restored**
Linear Mode
