proof satan is a mistranslation
Posted on: February 14, 2008 - 5:17am
Offline
proof satan is a mistranslation
Found these links a long time ago thought you guys might get somthing out of them.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/satan_history.htm
I watched your movie you said that the church says that satan
created all those other gods similar to jesus so people wouldn't believe.
If this stuff checks out we can disprove satan and thus god using
their own logic.
- Login to post comments
FYI: Most modern translations of the Bible do not have this. They are based on far superior manuscripts than the KJV of 1611. Mormons use KJV because they've built their erroneous doctrines on it. Most Christians are not KJV readers so this argument doesn't really work.
Kinda convenient, don't you think? Only certain bibles are God's word?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Which version do you use? When I was a practicing southern baptist the KJV was about the only version used. My father in law (baptist preacher) gave me a KJV after I got baptised and the SB church is one of the largest denominations in the USA. I would say that your assertion that most christians do not use the KJV is pure bullshit unless you have something to back up your claim.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Not really. The KJV has been a dominant work because of tradition which is never a good reason to hold to something. There have been better translations available for centuries. God's Word is the original works and our copies today are closer to that because of the extant manuscripts that have been discovered. You may find it difficult to hold to God's Word if there are better versions available but it is simply the process of translation that affords this reality. That is why the point is God's Word in the original works is what is considered inerrant and our copies are as close to those as possible.
I'd say the NIV is the widest used work today. I'm sure you could find circulation numbers etc. to prove this. I would just point out that Southern Baptists tend to be the most fundamentalist and that goes hand in hand with the KJV. I would hardly consider all of Christianity fundamentalist so I would disagree with your conclusion.
I have several bibles actually, however I do not have an NIV. According to many christians I know this particuliar bible is even more fallible. I realize that this is only an opinion and without any point of reference almost meaningless. Most people do not speak the original languages of the OT and the NT therefore have to rely on the opinions of scholars.
Yes, southern baptists tend to be the most fundy, however they do represent a significant portion of the population. This was my arguement that of numbers and not of doctrine. I do not consider all christians to be fundies. I know many christians who are pro-choice for instance. I know many who believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, well civil unions anyways. I guess the problem I have with is the fundamentalist portion of the population because that is what I was personally involved with. I would imagine belonging to such a fundamentalist denomination had some affect on my switch back to atheism.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
I can understand your frustration. I too grew up in a pretty much fundamentalist church and since have moved on to more mature faith. For me, the switch didn't involved a move to atheism but a deeper understanding of my faith. I think God can handle any question we have for him so my personal philosphy is to ask the difficult questions. I've found time and again that there are reasonable explanations for everything that doesn't require me to write off God although I no longer see issues in the very "black and white" perspective of fundamentalism. I know there are some books out there that kind of deal with the transformation from fundie to maturity. I'd encourage you to check them out if you have any interest. I think it would be interesting for you to see how other people have been in your boat and still were able to rescue their faith. Just a thought. I use the TNIV for my Bible work as it has fixed some of the more peculiar dynamic equivalence of the NIV. I still think NIV is far superior to KJV. However, if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul......funny joke I've heard folks say. I agree that many have to rely on scholars for what they can know about certain Bible Translations. That was why I was motivated to study Greek and Hebrew. Its been really good. I would highly recommend How to Read the Bible for All its Worth by Gordon and Fee if you have any interest in important things to keep in mind on reading the Bible ie. genre, literary structure, historical-cultural setting etc. It does a good job of dispelling much of the misunderstanding I see pervade on this site. Also, How to Choose a Bible Translation is also by them and talks about the different translations out there and their plus's and minus's. I actually did a paper on this subject for a conference. If you had any interest I could send it to you to check out. Thanks for the response.