Biblical Belief Quiz

[thessalonian]

more avoidance. The tactic is don't answer the question and eventually they will stop asking. How clever.

Edited October 19, 2006 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1095856' date='Oct 19 2006, 12:11 PM']
Someone once asked a notorious criminal, [b]"Why do you rob banks?"
[/b]
He answered quite directly...[b]"Because that is where the money is."[/b]
Indeed.

And that proves what, may I ask?
[/quote]
Of course you missed the point. You're fishing in your livewell becasue 'that's wherre the fish are'.

If you only want to be pointlessly annoying, rest assured, you're doing a fine job.

If you are interested in discussing things with the catholics, they're talking and listening, you're just not saying anything worthwhile.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I see that my response has been completely avoided.

[thessalonian]

Don't feel like your alone.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1095844' date='Oct 19 2006, 02:00 PM']
Most likely the very same people { within another denomination } with the HUBRIS to stamp this on things...[/quote]So, now you reject the KJV and its qualifications of its translators? Were they capable of accurately translating the Bible? If so, why shouldn't they identify themselves as the translating body?

Capriciously throwing words like "hubris" around isn't adding to your credibility.

[toledo_jesus]

The KJV also used to contain the so-called Apocrypha in its first few incarnations.

so...unchanging word of God and all, abridged wot wot.

[Eutychus]

[quote]So, now you reject the KJV and its qualifications of its translators? Were they capable of accurately translating the Bible? If so, why shouldn't they identify themselves as the translating body?[/quote]

?

They did. In fact, the translation issues were extensively listed within the volume itself.

I guess it never registered with you, that NO ONE called that "The KING JAMES Bible" for hundreds of years, because no one considered it as such. James merely paid for the effort out of the state treasury, and maybe read it a few times after publication, that was the sole extent of his contributions to the AUTHORIZED English Language Translation completed in 1611.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1096096' date='Oct 19 2006, 02:49 PM']
?

They did. In fact, the translation issues were extensively listed within the volume itself.

I guess it never registered with you, that NO ONE called that "The KING JAMES Bible" for hundreds of years, because no one considered it as such. James merely paid for the effort out of the state treasury, and maybe read it a few times after publication, that was the sole extent of his contributions to the AUTHORIZED English Language Translation completed in 1611.
[/quote]

But they call it the King James Version NOW.

so:

[b][i][u][font="Arial Black"][color="#990000"]IS IT IDOLITRY!?!?!?[/b][/i][/u][/font][/color]

[mod]The rules about changing text sizes have been made known. Please abide by them as etiquette demands. -Raphael[/mod]

Edited October 20, 2006 by Raphael

[desertwoman]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1096107' date='Oct 19 2006, 06:03 PM']
But they call it the King James Version NOW.

so:

[b][i][u][font="Arial Black"][color="#990000"]IS IT IDOLITRY!?!?!?[/b][/i][/u][/font][/color]
[/quote]


No. Just like the Douay-Rheims Version is not.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1096135' date='Oct 19 2006, 05:31 PM']
No. Just like the Douay-Rheims Version is not.
[/quote]

Was that a 747 flying overhead.
Of course it's not from our perspective. I think you miss the point of the question. We would not say it is idolatry. To do so would be hyprocritical as you have pointed out. But to those who say calling the Pope Holy Father is worshipping him, I would think that calling the Holy Word of God by the name of a man would be idolatry. I.e. hypocrisy. Of course you folks won't admit it. A part of the question is the hyperliteral judgemental (from the externals) way that protestants point the finger at us. They never notice the four pointing back at them of course.

Edited October 19, 2006 by thessalonian

[Eutychus]

Idolatry?

Of a book?

You mean WORSHIPPING the actual book ITSELF? Parading it around, holding it high, incensing it, and bowing to it?

Is THAT what you are asking?

You mean like this?

[img]http://www.vocations.org/liturgicalinstitute/student%20life/liturgy%20summer%202005/entrance%20procession%202.jpg[/img]

No, I have never seen an evangelical pastor enter into a church in this manner.

I trust that answers your question to me.

[thessalonian]

[quote]Idolatry?

Of a book?

You mean WORSHIPPING the actual book ITSELF? Parading it around, holding it high, incensing it, and bowing to it?

Is THAT what you are asking?

You mean like this? [/quote]

Your kidding right? If this is what you think I mean then your not very bright Euty. Are you suggesting that what is being done in that picture is idolatry of a book? Do you really think so?

[Budge]

I am happy to be in a church that does not do processions.

I think processions and making a formality of entering the church and exiting it are based in human pride. That is a definitely a man-made tradition and I speak to all the Prot churches that do it as well.

Why are those processions even necessary?

I trust a pastor with an old beat-up falling apart Bible more then I do one with a gold-encrusted, keep it away from the kiddies because its too valuable to even touch type.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Budge

[desertwoman]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1096154' date='Oct 19 2006, 06:51 PM']
Was that a 747 flying overhead.
Of course it's not from our perspective. I think you miss the point of the question. We would not say it is idolatry. To do so would be hyprocritical as you have pointed out. But to those who say calling the Pope Holy Father is worshipping him, I would think that calling the Holy Word of God by the name of a man would be idolatry. I.e. hypocrisy. Of course you folks won't admit it. A part of the question is the hyperliteral judgemental (from the externals) way that protestants point the finger at us. They never notice the four pointing back at them of course.
[/quote]


Nope. It didn't go over my head. I was playing around. And us folks admit what persay?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Budge' post='1096187' date='Oct 19 2006, 06:23 PM']

Why are those processions even necessary? [/quote]

You know how many times I was at worship as a Protestant (evenagelical) and it would take 5 minutes into the service for people to stop talking. Hello? We're starting here. Please shut up. And sometimes we'd be praying and people were not aware that we'd started praying.

I think a procession says to everyone, "Okay everyone... focus... we're starting." In the same way making the sign of the cross before praying alerts the mind to what's happening.