Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[Magistrum]

Arx, I think you are wrong. No, not about your belief, about their bible being different,  I have been reading it (currently on psalms)  and it is absolute the same as the others, a bit simpler too, it has a easy language what is good, because english isn't my main language.

I could be wrong tough, maybe the differences are all on the new testament...

Also, jw believe that the only people that won't be saved are the people who already were jw but abandoned god or something for that effect. The 144 thousands thing is supported by the bible(the king james one, haven't seen it on theirs yet) and these go to heaven and the rest stay on a paradise on earth.





On a note tough, damn, it looks like I have became the jw lawyer now.

[TD1]

Ah, right.

Well, I maintain that Jesus as a separate God does have some scriptural basis. After all, by saying Son of God, he's not actually saying he IS God.

Pfft, you silly protestants with your sola scriptura

You're as Catholic as I am Protestant, Helgo.

Still, if you don't base your belief on the Bible, you're just making it up as you go along. True, I think the Bible is just an older version of making it up, but at least it has what is called "Weak Verification"

In other words, historical backing.

[Arx]

Arx, I think you are wrong. No, not about your belief, about their bible being different.

Jehovah's Witness Bible: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."
New International Version: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The two-character difference between those two is the basis for an immense difference in theology. The difference is major and present.

I recommend the New International Version for Bible study and the Good News for casual reading. The former is mostly readable but a tight translation that can be confusing. The latter is a fairly tight translation with exact wordings changed a little to be easier to understand.

[TD1]

Arx, I think you are wrong. No, not about your belief, about their bible being different.

Jehovah's Witness Bible: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."
New International Version: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The two-character difference between those two is the basis for an immense difference in theology. The difference is major and present.

I recommend the New International Version for Bible study and the Good News for casual reading. The former is mostly readable but a tight translation that can be confusing. The latter is a fairly tight translation with exact wordings changed a little to be easier to understand.

But, as I said before, the Bible does support multiple deities- Jesus being one of them isn't such a big stretch of the imagination.

[Magistrum]

I agree with dwarfy, also, you're funny man. The bible don't support multiple deities tough, as god frequently states that worshiping anything other than him is punishable by death, even if said thing is a statue of Jesus.

[Arx]

But, as I said before, the Bible does support multiple deities- Jesus being one of them isn't such a big stretch of the imagination.

Jesus literally said he was God.

[Helgoland]

-snip-

Why don't you read the bible in your own language, then?

Ah, right.

Well, I maintain that Jesus as a separate God does have some scriptural basis. After all, by saying Son of God, he's not actually saying he IS God.

Pfft, you silly protestants with your sola scriptura

You're as Catholic as I am Protestant, Helgo.

Still, if you don't base your belief on the Bible, you're just making it up as you go along. True, I think the Bible is just an older version of making it up, but at least it has what is called "Weak Verification"

In other words, historical backing.

I went to Church this morning and got pissed because it was an ecumenical service without sacrament and proper sermon. I'm more Catholic than you think
It's mostly a cultural thing, anyway. Basing theology on the Vatican makes just as much sense as basing it on some Protestant bishops' interpretation of the bible, and only seems weird if you're not accustomed to it.

[Frumple]

... second language would explain some things. Not in a bad way, exactly, but it illuminates why small differences might not seem as important.

Unfortunately, small differences can cause a pretty substantial change in meaning, as has been noted by the ninjas while I was typing this, which is the problem when dealing with bible translations. Even things as small as the noted "the word was a god" vs. "the word was god" (which the vast, vast majority of other translations use) has very different connotations.

If you're looking for pretty solid sources to cite regarding biblical passages online, your first steps are probably bible hub or bible gateway (I usually use this one, myself -- I like the color scheme better ). They both offer many different translations and the means to view them in parallel to see differences.

[TD1]

I only said you were as Catholic as I am Protestant.

I would be peeved if my Church started doing mass, for example.

Mainly for cultural and traditional reasons, to be sure.

And as for taking the Pope's theology over interpretation, at least said interpretation is based on Scriptural teachings. When the Pope said " There is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit" of Queen Elizabeth.

Making it up can lead to dangerous repercussions, using the actual texts at least gives it foundation.

[Magistrum]

I want to read it in english because all the bible translations in my language are translations of a translation, that is, they are translated from the english translation, I might go around learning Latin or ancient Greek if I do not find the English translation satisfying.

[TD1]

But, as I said before, the Bible does support multiple deities- Jesus being one of them isn't such a big stretch of the imagination.

Jesus literally said he was God.

So?

Word may be twisted or come from a twisted mouth, and all it takes is someone to write it down or make it up for it to become scripture. Not to mention the editorial process.

[Magistrum]

Exactly, it's up to your faith to believe that god made someone write that.

[Frumple]

... do remember the thread's rules, as well as its general purpose, TD1. Lax as this last bit has been, antagonist discussion really isn't the point of the thread.

[TD1]

Well, I was only showing how "Jesus said so" isn't the most convincing argument, but fair enough.

Exactly, it's up to your faith to believe that god made someone write that.

Yep, it all comes down to faith, this being the reason that I don't have faith. 'Cause it's rather relative

[Helgoland]

I only said you were as Catholic as I am Protestant.

I would be peeved if my Church started doing mass, for example.

Mainly for cultural and traditional reasons, to be sure.

And as for taking the Pope's theology over interpretation, at least said interpretation is based on Scriptural teachings. When the Pope said " There is no doubt that whosoever sends her out of the world with the pious intention of doing God service, not only does not sin but gains merit" of Queen Elizabeth.

Making it up can lead to dangerous repercussions, using the actual texts at least gives it foundation.

Wait, you're that Protestant? Oh my, I have misjudged you
It's not like the Church ignores the bible, though. But since it was the Church who put together that book, deciding which texts go in and which ones stay out, it would be silly to give the text priority over the Church... Over the pope though, sure. It's not like he's talking ex cathedra all the time.