False Doctrine w/i Baptists, Pentecostals, and Charismatics

[Ratsah]

False Doctrines

Synopsis: False doctrines of "Accept Christ in Heart", "Speaking in Tongues", False Teachers, Greek to English Translations, idioms/sayings/customs.

Brings up some interesting points in translations in the Bible. See Greek/Hebrew Texts for more insight. Greek Textus Receptus to the KJB

[Sandokiri]

So... without needing to go to an apologetics-focused website and and listen to a professional Christian spin doctor attack the spin of other Christians as though religion were a game of Beyblade...

Why do you - you, not the preacher - think these doctrines are false? Why do you think your own doctrines are true?

As for translations, you appear to be a KJVO, or 1611-ist, or whatever KJV advocates call themselves. Why do you believe this? In particular, why do you favour the Textus receptus over other manuscripts; and archaic English with its forgotten idioms and obsolete terminologies, over modern English?

[Ratsah]

Sandokiri

So... without needing to go to an apologetics-focused website and and listen to a professional Christian spin doctor attack the spin of other Christians as though religion were a game of Beyblade...

Why do you - you, not the preacher - think these doctrines are false? Why do you think your own doctrines are true?

As for translations, you appear to be a KJVO, or 1611-ist, or whatever KJV advocates call themselves. Why do you believe this? In particular, why do you favour the Textus receptus over other manuscripts; and archaic English with its forgotten idioms and obsolete terminologies, over modern English?

Looking over the Newer Translations and their Westcott and Hortt Greek Texts Vs. the Textus Receptus it's pretty obvious, the TR holds more grounding compared to the. Westcott and Hortt's revisions. Their revisions are taken from obscure Greek text found in a waste bin at St. Catherine's Cathedral Church in Alexandria, and make up about 1% of the majority texts,, after that they included and excluded doctrines attacking the deity of Christ with without their knowledge. English is alright, but it sometimes doesn't suffice to the underlining meanings and nuances older languages had. Doesn't mean you can't learn from the English texts, but to a new believer or one who isn't familiar with language, error can arise.

[Kingdom of His Cause]

The second a preacher claims any doctrine from any religion to be false based solely on his own interpretation, he has discredited himself.

[Sandokiri]

Hamul

Sandokiri

So... without needing to go to an apologetics-focused website and and listen to a professional Christian spin doctor attack the spin of other Christians as though religion were a game of Beyblade...

Why do you - you, not the preacher - think these doctrines are false? Why do you think your own doctrines are true?

As for translations, you appear to be a KJVO, or 1611-ist, or whatever KJV advocates call themselves. Why do you believe this? In particular, why do you favour the Textus receptus over other manuscripts; and archaic English with its forgotten idioms and obsolete terminologies, over modern English?

Looking over the Newer Translations and their Westcott and Hortt Greek Texts Vs. the Textus Receptus it's pretty obvious, the TR holds more grounding compared to the. Westcott and Hortt's revisions. Their revisions are taken from obscure Greek text found in a waste bin at St. Catherine's Cathedral Church in Alexandria, and make up about 1% of the majority texts,, after that they included and excluded doctrines attacking the deity of Christ with without their knowledge. English is alright, but it sometimes doesn't suffice to the underlining meanings and nuances older languages had. Doesn't mean you can't learn from the English texts, but to a new believer or one who isn't familiar with language, error can arise.

So you're saying it's not about actual errors, but disagreement with certain dogmas you hold. Also, when you're talking about languages that hadn't been spoken for centuries before being rediscovered, you're still going to lose underlying meanings and nuance.

[Trigr Warning]

"His texts are wrong because my texts are right."

"No, his texts are wrong because my texts are right."

Something tells me that there's no concrete way to tell which is "best" and that it's all based on personal bias. Even when you back up your side with "evidence" that evidence is evidence only because it supports your side.

Your castles are built on pillars of sand, yet you're saying that the castles built on pillars of salt are weak and should fall.

[Ratsah]

Trigr Warning

"His texts are wrong because my texts are right."

"No, his texts are wrong because my texts are right."

Something tells me that there's no concrete way to tell which is "best" and that it's all based on personal bias. Even when you back up your side with "evidence" that evidence is evidence only because it supports your side.

Your castles are built on pillars of sand, yet you're saying that the castles built on pillars of salt are weak and should fall.

This is why you read said text, work it side by side, then test each text according to the surrounding history, culture, and social/psychological, scientific, and spiritual consistencies. Most of the newer translations agree with the Majority texts with a few exceptions and that's based on a few extra manuscripts, editorialized by a 2 men. Going to side with the Majority text for now because it hasn't failed me yet.

[Ratsah]

Hamul

Trigr Warning

"His texts are wrong because my texts are right."

"No, his texts are wrong because my texts are right."

Something tells me that there's no concrete way to tell which is "best" and that it's all based on personal bias. Even when you back up your side with "evidence" that evidence is evidence only because it supports your side.

Your castles are built on pillars of sand, yet you're saying that the castles built on pillars of salt are weak and should fall.

No, don't oversimplify it. This is why you read said text, work it side by side, then test each text according to the surrounding history, culture, and social/psychological, scientific, and spiritual consistencies. Most of the newer translations agree with the Majority texts with a few exceptions and that's based on a few extra manuscripts, editorialized by a 2 men. Going to side with the Majority text for now because it hasn't failed me yet.

[Sandokiri]

Kingdom of His Cause

The second a preacher claims any doctrine from any religion to be false based solely on his own interpretation, he has discredited himself.

The problem there is that every preacher must do that to every religion / denomination save his own, as an inevitable consequence of the profession. Those claims needn't be overt, either: simply by preaching a monotheistic (or variant 1th) system as true and "idolatry" as a crime, you dismiss animist systems as being false.

Thus every Christian preacher must, in proscribing idolatry, claim that Shintô's animist doctrine is false. Shintô, by rejecting the exclusive nature of monotheism and identifying other religions' gods as kami rather than The One True God™, likewise makes an implicit claim that monotheism is false.

That's just one pair of examples. Basically, the only "preacher" who would have never discredited himself would have to have been the first; and even then, were he alive to defend his doctrine against challengers, he would have had to declare the challengers false based solely on his own interpretation.

[Ratsah]

Kingdom of His Cause

The second a preacher claims any doctrine from any religion to be false based solely on his own interpretation, he has discredited himself.

A person will discredit himself once in his lifetime. Finding an example of it out of the entire talk doesn't disprove any of the truths that he presents, but only serves to distract from any truths presented later on.

[CuAnnan]

So your entire argument is that they're false doctrines because they disagree with your dogmatic policies.
You don't have any proof that yours are real even though you're using a version of the bible that was specifically translated for political reasons involving removing God as the medium for temporal power?
Please. Get some integrity somewhere. Your hypocrisy can only get you so far.

[Ratsah]

CuAnnan

So your entire argument is that they're false doctrines because they disagree with your dogmatic policies.
You don't have any proof that yours are real even though you're using a version of the bible that was specifically translated for political reasons involving removing God as the medium for temporal power?
Please. Get some integrity somewhere. Your hypocrisy can only get you so far.

Hypocrisy? If I believe the Textus Receptus is the inspired word of God where the KJB was translated from, you're missing the point. The KJB unfortunately had Roman Catholics and Calvinists on board changing the nuances and meanings under the Greek, but that's not the point really. It is difficult and almost impossible to translate for bat-um Greek into English without lossing the original meanings. That is pretty much Jim Browns entire argument and concern. He isn't completely right on every qualm he has but he's on the right track.

[CuAnnan]

Hypocracy?
I spelled the ******** word for you. Hypocrisy.

Hamul

If I believe the Textus Receptus is the inspired word of God and the KJB is in fact politically altered by Calvinists and Roman Catholic Church, you have it backwards my friend.

There's zero doubt among historians that the KJV was written with a political motive.
Not politically altered by the Calvinists and RCC. By the King of England.

Your argument is entirely "These people interpret their translation of some of the same books that they ascribe to Christ than I do the interpretation of the translation of some of the same books I ascribe to Christ".

How's your Koine Greek, Aramaic and so on?

You haven't read the bible.
You've read translations.
ALL of which had political agendas.

Your hypocrisy is your insistence that your interpretation of your translation of your choice of books from that era is the correct one with NO evidence.
Yes. That makes you a hypocrite.
I'm sorry that my shorter version of this sentiment was lost on you.

[Ratsah]

CuAnnan

Hypocracy?

I spelled the ******** word for you. Hypocrisy.

Hamul

If I believe the Textus Receptus is the inspired word of God and the KJB is in fact politically altered by Calvinists and Roman Catholic Church, you have it backwards my friend.

There's zero doubt among historians that the KJV was written with a political motive.
Not politically altered by the Calvinists and RCC. By the King of England.

Your argument is entirely "These people interpret their translation of some of the same books that they ascribe to Christ than I do the interpretation of the translation of some of the same books I ascribe to Christ".

How's your Koine Greek, Aramaic and so on?

You haven't read the bible.
You've read translations.
ALL of which had political agendas.

Your hypocrisy is your insistence that your interpretation of your translation of your choice of books from that era is the correct one with NO evidence.
Yes. That makes you a hypocrite.
I'm sorry that my shorter version of this sentiment was lost on you.

Then may I ask what is correct?

[CuAnnan]

Hamul

Then may I ask what is correct?

No. You may not. Because I wasn't there, because I don't speak Koine Greek but most importantly because I am not making objective claims about the matter based on an entirely subjective perspective.
I have read various translations of the Bible. And all of them describe a man who would be offended by you, at best, or angry at you at worst.