Salvation and Personal Growth? Incompatible?

[unsafe]

Redbaron -----First off ------I don't tell people how they should post --or how long their post should be ------if you don't want to read my posts that is your right -----your being a bully here by trying to exercise control over the way I post -----

You say this ----
Unsafe, in 1 or 2 sentences, can you clearly express what your'e trying to say, without the extraneous stuff? Thanks.

I say
I will use scripture in my post and that is that ----you don't have to read them -----I skip over some posters here myself if I am not interested in what they say ------we all have free will to choose what we read ----

Now your quote here -----I believe I am searching for truth.

I say ----Well that may be true -that you do search for some kind of truth --but just maybe not Bible truth as you seem to dislike scripture being posted ----which indicates to me that you take offence to it being posted by me --but it is OK for you to post scripture which is CUT and PASTE----now that makes no sense to me ------seems the double standard applies cause your Redbaron and that gives you high authority over the sight and you get to post the way you want to but others have to follow your rules ----I don't think so -----LOL

Now this is your quote here ------Apparently it is also possible to be so wordy and cut-and-pastey, that whatever point you are trying to make gets lost.


i say ---Well to me that is just a big Cop Out Statement -----or it could be the Truth as the Bible clearly points out in Cut and Paste says ----

! Corinthians 2:14 ----AMP
But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters].

I say
And by the Way there Redbaron ------Any Born Again Person has the Holy spirit indwelling in them and the Holy Spirit who is God and it is the Holy spirit who guides the person to understand the Spiritual meaning of the scripture ---it is not the person themselves -----just to clarify ----this is a promise from Jesus Himself ----------------

posting this to back up what I am saying ------that is why I post scripture

The Work of the Holy Spirit ---John 16 Easy to read version --- Jesus speaking here

12 “I have so much more to tell you, but it is too much for you to accept now. 13 But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth. He will not speak his own words. He will speak only what he hears and will tell you what will happen in the future. 14 The Spirit of truth will bring glory to me by telling you what he receives from me. 15 All that the Father has is mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will tell you what he receives from me.

more back up scripture here ----read all -----

How the Holy Spirit Helps You Read the Word of God - Topical Studies

The Holy Spirit’s presence in the life of the reader is essential to his total understanding, appreciation, and implementation of Scripture....

www.biblestudytools.com

1. The Holy Spirit’s presence in the life of the reader is essential to his total understanding, appreciation, and implementation of Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:6-16).

 

[Redbaron]

Yes, I'm familiar with your use of Scripture as a backup to your thoughts. That can backfire sometimes.

I can remember on Wondercafe Classic, you based an entire thread on a verse you found in Job (Something to do with a 5 year old saying "I Decree and Declare... a variation on name it and claim it.) The problem was you used a verse from a speech by IIRC, Eliphaz, one of the Friends of Job, who at the end of the book is essentially told by God that he didn't know what he was talking about. Since the speaker of whatever prooftext you found was discredited by God, so was the verse, and so was the entire thread. Too often, you do not search the Scriptures to find truth; rather I suspect you search FOR Scripture that seems to back up what you already think. So, based on that and a few other facepalm-worthy misinterpretations you've come up with for Scripture verses over the years, I don't tend to read through the scads of (likely as not irrelevant) verses you post. Thus I asked for 2 or 3 sentences summarizing what YOU think. You seem to be unwilling or unable to do that; That's OK. I'm sure you're still a fine human being.

Maybe you could be more careful to see that the verses you choose actually say and mean what you think they say and mean. Maybe a decent commentary, like the Interpreter's, or Abingdon's, might be helpful.

And one more hint: No serious student of the Bible uses the NKJV. As a friend and colleague of mine pointed out when it first came out way back when, "It's a fourth-rate update of a second-rate translation of third-rate Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts."

 

[Mendalla]

The laugh is for the last line, @Redbaron. Have never actually looked at the NKJV, but the KJV impresses more with its language than its usefulness as a good translation so I can't see an "update" improving on that.

 

[unsafe]

Redbaron ----you said ----And one more hint: No serious student of the Bible uses the NKJV.

Well I say ---you can have your hint --LOL --cause scripture comes from God and all scripture no matter what Bible Version you use has the same Spiritual meaning -----which can only come from the right spirit within -----

i tried to make it easy for you by posting scripture from the easy to read version --------LOL

And I am sure you are a fine person also -----

 

[Ritafee]

@Redbaron ...What translation do you prescribe?

 

[Luce NDs]

I sense a great "schism" going on here......so what is the difference between a Western outlook on Christianity and a more Orthodox Eastern Christianity, because there seems to be a lot the same but some major differences. North Americans seem to have adopted the Western and added even more through their numerous denominations. I seem to sense this in the replies from unsafe and redbaron. Especially regarding sin.

The conflict between icons and iconoclasts (those preferring destruction of the signs? Some sage said something given by God ... assigned?

The denied by power ... illiteracy is preferred by tyrants ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Redbaron ----you said ----And one more hint: No serious student of the Bible uses the NKJV.

Well I say ---you can have your hint --LOL --cause scripture comes from God and all scripture no matter what Bible Version you use has the same Spiritual meaning -----which can only come from the right spirit within -----

i tried to make it easy for you by posting scripture from the easy to read version --------LOL

And I am sure you are a fine person also -----

Is scripture extensive as God ... right beyond the book fits ... as the narrative continues ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Reading dead tongues may be suggested as writ somewhere in the actions of followers ... mules? Heh hawsers ...

 

[GordW]

Here you go BetteTheRed ----

Bible Translation Comparison: The Top 10 Most Accurate Bible Translations
BY TIFFANY NICOLE

Bible Translation Comparison: Top 10 Most Accurate Bible Translations

Are you looking for the 10 most accurate Bible translations? In this post I do a Bible translation comparison so you can make the best choice!

lavendervines.com

THey have the KJV and NKJV on their list, the KJV is not considered an exceptionally good translwation by any professor I had in seminary. ANd yet they do not have either the RSV (which was used in the classic Interpreter's Bible) nor the NRSV (which is what we were asked to use by both our Jewish and Christian Scripture professors in seminary) [as a side note they also do not list a Jewish translation of the Jewish Scripture/Old Testament]. And the NIV is known to have a definite conservative bias in the choices they made. I think this list was chosen to conform to vrsions that support the theological positions of the list compiler. Which is fine, but you need to state that upfront.

 

[BetteTheRed]

My three particular favourites, especially for doing comparisons between translations:

i) The Inclusive Bible. Deliberately intended to remove sexist, racist, homophobic tendencies in the original text, it's a really solid translation. Jesuit-led initiative, which means it's going to be very thoughtful, very deliberate. Catholic bible, includes apocrypha. Big egregious error in Ruth, notwithstanding, it's more hit than miss, although sometimes the substitutes for Lord and Father become a bit clumsy/repetitive.

ii) The NSRV, particularly the Oxford Study edition. Again, includes Apocrypha.

iii) The Five Gospels. The Jesus Seminar's translation of the four canonical gospels, plus Thomas. What it's particularly good for is highlighting the commonalities and differences and clear sources of the gospels. Limited, obviously, to the five gospels, but can be quite illuminating. Also, a solid plain translation, very similar to the NSRV.

 

[Mendalla]

Deliberately intended to remove sexist, racist, homophobic tendencies in the original text, it's a really solid translation.

Even when that bias is the original meaning of the text in the original language? I mean, I can see cleaning up the cases where translation has introduced those biases (there's plenty), but if there is bias in the original text in the original language, are we really doing the world a service by removing it? I think we need a warts and all Bible that is faithful to the original text, and then deal with the warts.

 

[BetteTheRed]

And it does a reasonably good job at that, until we hit Ruth.

The women of Jerusalem describe Ruth as being "worth more than 7 children" to Naomi. The original text compares Ruth to seven SONS. Different thing.

It's a very elegant and readable translation. I like it a great deal.

 

[Luce NDs]

Foe Bias ... of a reference to the perfect number ... a reciprocation of "L" in some iconic applications!

Thus a sort of flying fertility in the dark and obscure ... some say black does not exist and there the lady resides ... sometimes with the moniker Bathsheba ... Ba being an old expression of the shadow of sol ... bottom line! Sometimes my sweet Babbo ... scary?

Then there is demographic statistics that are evil as the word contains demo ... roots of hated democracy! Tyrants have an aversion related to avarice ... grasps?

Petulance vs impetuous:
Impetulant is a socialized corrupt of the word impetuous, meaning impatient or impulsive, (as an impetuous child) . The word is not an official term but is used in local culture to mean virtually the same thing as impetuous, as showing a sudden, impatient irritation over some trifling annoyance.

Seems to me to cause waves in the pool (in human)! Imagine the splash ...

 

[unsafe]

BetteTheRed ---you said -----The women of Jerusalem describe Ruth as being "worth more than 7 children" to Naomi. The original text compares Ruth to seven SONS. Different thing.

I ask ------What makes you think it is a different thing -----to say sons and children ------and can you give Bible and the scripture that says children instead of sons ------thanks

 

[BetteTheRed]

I'm talking about my particularly favorite translation (The Inclusive Bible, including Apocrypha; still in copyright, not available in BibleGateway, etc., because of copyright), and an error in it.

Obviously, in an ancient patriarchal society, one daughter was not equal to one son. So to say that a single daughter (-in-law, in fact) had the worth of seven sons means a GREAT deal. To reduce the sons to children, IN THIS PARTICULAR PASSAGE in one book, is a translation 'error' in my view, however subtle.

 

[BetteTheRed]

unsafe, do you know any Jewish people? Jewish scholars? Do you have access to a synagogue? You might find some interesting ideas in contemporary Judaism.

 

[unsafe]

BetteTheRed ------thanks for your reply ---this is what I found ------

I say -----
So I see that you and others would like this translation because it is genderless -----many today have a problem with the male Adam being the first Christ and so what the inculsive bible does for them is take scripture and twist it make it their own to suit the society of today who have a problem with gender biases and replaced a person to be an IT-------that is what I see here ------you can read all

The Inclusive Bible - Liturgy

The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation

liturgy.co.nz

First the plusses. A lot of the translations in the NRSV that I wish had been done better have been dealt with quite well in this translation. For example: אָדָם (‘adam), in Genesis 2:7 formed from the אֲדָמָה (‘adamah), is rendered as a genderless ‘earth creature (an “it”) fashioned out of the clay of the earth‘. Only in verse 22, when God has divided the earth creature in two, does the story have a male and female.

So I say ------So how does the Inclusive Bible deals with circumcision which was just for men -----are they including females in that and how is that done --cause if they say earth creature or humankind they are including females in this procedure and that goes against the original text therefore they would be taking the original text that God Himself gave to the authors to write down and making up their own doctrine -----and there are grave warnings against doing that -----

I say ----
So this is from -----and actually they ask the same question about certain scripture that says men went to war ---etc how do you get around that without changing the original text ----?????

read all here
- The New International Version: Inclusive Language Edition - Trinitarian Bible Society

fathers were often held responsible for the actions of their children and husbands for their wives (see Numbers 30). It is the males who were to be circumcised, the males who were to go to war and the males who were to present themselves before the Lord three times each year
(Exodus 23.17). Thus, it is impossible to see how one can “mute the patriarchalism of the culture” without “compromising the message of the Spirit”.

I say --I guess whatever floats your boat ----but there is the thing ---once one excepts Christ in their heart by following the scripture ---there is no gender biases ---as we are all one in Christ Jesus -------and get this Folks ----There is NOT ONE Scripture on the Color of one's skin ----Why because with God in you it is not an Issue ----we are all one in Christ once your are Born Again ------

So gender biases are only for this physical world for those who are unbelievers ----- just my view ----

 

[jimkenney12]

Reading that Adam was the first Christ surprised me greatly. It would take enormous bending of scripture to get to that conclusion.

 

[unsafe]

jimkenney12 -----Reading that Adam was the first Christ surprised me greatly. It would take enormous bending of scripture to get to that conclusion.

Not Really there jimkenney12 -------

1 Corinthians 15:42-49 New International Version (NIV)
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the image of the heavenly man.

 

[Luce NDs]

Reading that Adam was the first Christ surprised me greatly. It would take enormous bending of scripture to get to that conclusion.

In the beginning was a dark formless void ... then a' damn light disturbed the rest!

Reminds me of the first Christmas experienced with my nephews ... when awakened late ... they didn't wish to be disturbed from their godly rest!