ECT How D'ism Curtails Trust in the Bible

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
People distrust the Bible because of the claims of excited guys like the prophecy experts and what they think modern times and middle east mean.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Why is it not in the usual Christian material that is supposed to be showing the reasons to believe Scripture? Because of a spastic belief system that started 2 centuries back which flits in and out of time frames and contexts and operates a system where God is doing two completely uncoordinated things/programs with 2 unconnected types of people. It is called Dispensationalism.
Click to expand...

Those who fail to distinguish between the different dispensations bring scorn upon Christianity when they say that the following pertains to today:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:17-18).​

Those in the Mid Acts community deny that this description of believers is in effect today. Those who believe that this is in effect during the present dispensation turn honest seekers of the truth away from Christianity.

Do you think what is said in these verses are in effect today?
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
People distrust the Bible because of the claims of excited guys like the prophecy experts and what they think modern times and middle east mean.
Click to expand...

If anything turns off people from Christianity it is those like you who teach that the land which the Lord gave Jacob is in heaven!

Even those who have not the Spirit know better than you because they know that the land which the Lord gave Jacob is on the present earth!
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
People distrust the Bible because of the claims of excited guys like the prophecy experts and what they think modern times and middle east mean.
Click to expand...
No, they distrust it because they don't know what's actually within, because of the misinformation spread by churches; mainly the RCC.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Those who fail to distinguish between the different dispensations bring scorn upon Christianity when they say that the following pertains to today:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:17-18).​

Those in the Mid Acts community deny that this description of believers is in effect today. Those who believe that this is in effect during the present dispensation turn honest seekers of the truth away from Christianity.

Do you think what is said in these verses are in effect today?
Click to expand...

You'll never get a straight answer from him. He'll say something like, everything is different post AD 70. That can mean anything he needs it to mean and lets him make stuff up in any given discussion. He is a fool and a fraud.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
translated from which language,Aramaic,Hebrew, Greek,Latin?
Click to expand...



Merry Christmas.

I think the correct term for Josephus type of Greek was Attic (named after a region) but I'm not sure. It is distinct from Luke-Acts and Hebrews as types, but much closer to them (complex and compound sentences) than Paul or John.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Merry Christmas.

I think the correct term for Josephus type of Greek was Attic (named after a region) but I'm not sure. It is distinct from Luke-Acts and Hebrews as types, but much closer to them (complex and compound sentences) than Paul or John.
Click to expand...

lol,that would be tricky seeing that the oldest copies of his writings are in Greek minuscule from 10th,11th century,,,well except for the Slavonic(old Russian) which are discredited.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
OK, even so, if you read a lot of them and then compared to Hebrews or John, there's differences. But Josephus, Hebrews and Luke are still much closer to each other in complexity than John.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
OK, even so, if you read a lot of them and then compared to Hebrews or John, there's differences. But Josephus, Hebrews and Luke are still much closer to each other in complexity than John.
Click to expand...

lol,Josephus made the comment that he was not very well versed on the fine points of the Greek language and that only an hand-full of Hebrews were speaking of why he wrote in Hebrew,then later his writings were translated to Greek in which of his writings? But we don’t have the originals of either,only Greek minuscule...
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
lol,Josephus made the comment that he was not very well versed on the fine points of the Greek language and that only an hand-full of Hebrews were speaking of why he wrote in Hebrew,then later his writings were translated to Greek in which of his writings? But we don’t have the originals of either,only Greek minuscule...
Click to expand...


Paul didn't write his own either.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Paul didn't write his own either.
Click to expand...

lol, in post #12 you said that part of your studies were the translation of Josephus(you said this in several threads).

This made me wonder just how many languages you knew,why is this,,,

In Jewish wars(book 1,preface,paragraph 1) Josephus himself states that he interpreted it into Greek for the barbarians and that he had written it in the language of his own country(Hebrew/Aramaic?).

In Antiquities of the Jews 20,11 is where Josephus speaks of the two or three others he knew that could speak the Greek language well but that he did understand the elements of it.

So it made me wonder you see seeing that you said you interpreted it in school from which language(you said attic in post #29),,,but then those manuscripts don’t exist any more.

so then the only two manuscripts left would be Greek minuscule,or Slavonic(old Russian) that exist that you could have interpreted it from,,,But you said Attic, you can understand why your statement about interpreting Josephus in school and then not knowing which language to say you interpreted it from would strike me curious right? ,,,maybe all of us by now might find your recollection of your school days odd,right?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
whitestone said:
lol, in post #12 you said that part of your studies were the translation of Josephus(you said this in several threads).

This made me wonder just how many languages you knew,why is this,,,

In Jewish wars(book 1,preface,paragraph 1) Josephus himself states that he interpreted it into Greek for the barbarians and that he had written it in the language of his own country(Hebrew/Aramaic?).

In Antiquities of the Jews 20,11 is where Josephus speaks of the two or three others he knew that could speak the Greek language well but that he did understand the elements of it.

So it made me wonder you see seeing that you said you interpreted it in school from which language(you said attic in post #29),,,but then those manuscripts don’t exist any more.

so then the only two manuscripts left would be Greek minuscule,or Slavonic(old Russian) that exist that you could have interpreted it from,,,But you said Attic, you can understand why your statement about interpreting Josephus in school and then not knowing which language to say you interpreted it from would strike me curious right? ,,,maybe all of us by now might find your recollection of your school days odd,right?
Click to expand...


If you are right, yes. We weren't taught any text criticism about JEWISH WAR only that we had to be on the look out for exagerration or embellishment about himself.

Are you undermining that he existed? That he made an account? That the account is pretty much factual? That the supernatural/signs in the account are factual?

I have the version with archeological photographs by the Jewish arch. Cornfeld. I don't recall him making fundamental challenges about the text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top