Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Alen's Achievements

  1. Greetings my new friend
    Please contact me here hannah_majzoub@yahoo.co.uk
    How are you today?? My name is Miss Hannah,I was impressed when i saw your profile today at (www.onlinebaptist.com) I like to be your friends ok; Please send me your e-mail to my inbox at (hannah_majzoub@yahoo.co.uk) so i will send you my Photos to you.
    waiting to hear from you soon.
    Miss H...

  2. I'll expand on the points I made, they are: 1. The writers of the Bible seem to be aware of the inspiration of the scriptures, yet the writers of the KJV do not seem to be aware. On the contrary, they give alternate translations, the include cross references to the Apocrypha, and in their preface to the KJV they call even the meanest translations the word of God. Why do you suppose that is? Does the Bible suggest that a writer of the Bible can be inspired unknowingly? Keep in mind that some suggest the passage saying the writers were "moved" means they were physically moved while writing the scriptures. How could the KJV translators miss that? 2. There are numerous editions of the KJV; this is generally explained away as fixing spelling errors. However spelling errors are not the only problem, words throughout these additions have been changed, added or removed throughout the KJV. How are we to know which version is right? Even modern publishers of the KJV such as Oxford and Cambridge do not agree on which words are correct in some passages. So with this in mind which version should we use, the 1611, 1629, 1769 or the 1850? 3. A translation that is 100% perfect needs to be compatible with the language it was translated from. I'll give an example to illustrate my point, to perfectly translate the sentence "I am going to the shop" from English to another language, I would need to have the "future tense" in that language, it seems pretty simply, but you translate that into say, Japanese, then you have issues. In Japanese the present and future tense are the exact same. It would be hard to translate that phrase clearly, without adding words to it, and thus changing the sentence. Therefore no longer being a "perfect" translation. Here now is the application to Bible versions, in Koine Greek, the language the NT was originally written in, there is at least one tense in it that does not exist in the English language. That tense denotes that this event is a "one time" only thing. How could you translate that though perfectly into English, since that tense does not exist in English? Adding words to it would no longer make it a perfect translation. 4. Another compatibility issue is words. In the original languages there is many words that do not exist in English, as a result some of them have been transferred to the English language to help (the word baptizo means to immerse in water, since English had no word for it, translators imported it into English as baptize, baptism etc) the meaning be understood. Others the closest word to it were instead used. In the Koine Greek, there are several words for love, but in English there is only one. In Greek, there are two words for the word "another" one meaning "another like this item" and one meaning "another not like this item". In the Hebrew there is words meaning an eternity in the past, and an eternity in the future, which in the KJV is translated as "from everlasting to everlasting". With this lack of compatibility, how is the total meaning able to be understood in English? How is it possible for there to be no loss of information when these words do not exist, and how can it be a perfect translation if words are added to reveal these meanings? 5. With all these issues currently in play, how do we also explain how many people's names, and many places in the Bible are not translated? How is it a perfect translation when the meaning is not revealed in these things? Most people's names have no real meaning to them today in English, but all the names in the Bible have meaning to them, and often has effects on our understanding of scripture, such as the Apostle Peter, when Christ said the familiar phrase "upon this rock.." we would not know if he was referring to a rock or to Peter without the original languages, as Peter's name means a small pebble or rock. Can the KJV be a perfect translation with these phrases not translated, and thus meaning lost? 6. The phrase "God forbid" appears in the NT some what, yet if you would care to look into the Koine Greek, the word God does not appear whatsoever in these passages. How is this a perfect translation of the passage? 7. Lastly, where was God's word before the KJV in 1611? No KJO advocate I have talked to can answer this question; ALL ignore it, and try to dismiss it. My friend that is not good enough, if God preserved it perfectly into English in 1611, then it should be preserved elsewhere perfectly as well. No translation that I know of agrees with the KJV, this is the ultimate dilemma for the KJO advocate, if God has not preserved His word perfectly in another language, why assume He did it in English? The only preservation done by Him we have proof of is through the original languages. Those were my points. I have yet to see a refutation of them. These are undeniable facts and/or rhetorical questions. I don't really care what KJO people believe, but the amount of insults I see generated towards those that do not hold their beliefs, and all this false information/propaganda gets to me sometimes. Even if you look at the "Forum rules" it insinuates that those who are not KJO will act in a unChristlike fashion. In one post a user calls all those who are not KJO idiots, I report the post, and nothing is done. How funny is that. Yet I say something out of line, I am told to "watch out". I may of come off harsh, and I apologize for that, but at the same time it is disappointing to see that the warning was only displayed to me and my comment, and not that of that user. A double standard is at play here, and that is a very disapointing site to see. Just so no one thinks I am lying about this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16922 Anyways, I am done with the KJO discussion. You may reply to my post if you wish, but I won't reply back, and I will no longer participate in any future KJO discussion. It frustrates me too much . -Alen
  3. Calvary, that argument is pretty lame, if anyone can answer my objections to the KJO position than I will hold it to some credibility, and may even become KJO. I will not bother posting them here, but they are in one of the locked topics. As IM4Given has already said, their is no need for debate on this topic. The KJO position doesn't even have a firm standing worthy of a debate, the best they can do is shift the burden of proof to the person debating their position, since they can't defend their own position. -Alen
  4. My mother is pretty bad, she will try fruit, open up and start eating/drinking stuff. The fruit she doesn't pay for the items she eats, but generally she buys some of it anyway, so I guess it makes up for it. Anything she eat/drinks she pays for though. As for me, I will open up an item to check it out, if I am considering to but it. If I do not like it, I will repackage it to the best of my ability, it is better I find out now whether I like it or not, then later on when I will get into an argument trying to return it. The only things I would open up are things that are going to cost me a bit, so basically electronical items. As for buying and returning items, I use to do that all the time with games, DVDs and music CDs. I would buy them, burn them, and then return them. I don't do that anymore though. I stopped pretty much when shops caught onto what I was doing, it was kind of obvious something was up when at the same time I am buying some music CDs, I am buying a 50 pack of blank CDs. This was when I was unsaved by the way :smile -Alen
  5. Our church uses "Soul Stirring Songs and Hymns". It's an okay hymnal book, though I think some of the songs in it are a bit shallow. I can't remember the name of the one by Majesty Music, but I like their one. -Alen
  6. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the fruits of the spirit include using Firefox, it's in there somewhere.. -Alen :lol:
  7. Hmm, man you guys are smarter than the average bear! I wish I thought up some of these answers when I was at the door. Though I did think of some of the things mentioned here, not all the points though. I will keep this in mind, I can't think of any other refutations at the moment, so I guess that is it, for now :grin -Alen
  8. Here is some examples: It may be true for you that you're an American, but it may not be true for someone else It is true today that man can fly, but it was not 500 years ago. -Alen
  9. ROFL. I have no idea, there is a lot I could be talking about :lol :nutty -Alen
  10. Okay here is the question/s: Is truth relative? In other words can something be true for you and not true for me? Can something be true at one point and no longer true? Or is it set in stone, truth is truth no matter what, and nothing has or will change that. This is to stir up some thinking, so before I even go on I want to make it clear so there is no misunderstandings. I am going to post suggestions and/or "explanations" to both sides, in order to get things rolling. If I am "defending" the relativity of truth, it is not because I believe in it, but simply to try and get some more conversation about it. If I someone misunderstands my intentions after this warning, I will go crazy. :mad: :make: I recently talked to a Hindu man, and he really got me stumped on a few things, and this was one of them, so this is a tool mostly for me to see how to approach the matter, as well as for the benefit of others :smile -Alen
  11. I don't get it? Are you making a joke about the spelling? :puzzled: (either post was edited or I was seeing things, never mind) As for the topic, I am pretty much with Dwayne on this. -Alen
  12. I know of people that are masons, there is a lot of false information spread, and these "rituals" and so forth are nonsense. When someone becomes a member, they go through a ceremony and so forth and then they are officially members, as you increase rank, more ceremonies you go through. You have to believe in a god to be a Mason, they do not really care which. Their is no worshiping of any god there. Is there something deep and mysterious about them? Yes. Could there be a lot of stuff under the surface? Yes. However of the people I know that were Masons, and some were for a very long time, they never saw anything that would raise an eyebrow. Also to answer the question, I believe a Christian can be a Mason, and be a very devout one at that. However I do not suggest anyone become one, due to the "appearance of evil". It would be much easier and safer to avoid them. -Alen
  13. Yep, that sure would simplify things :lol -Alen
  14. Even when people say a post count doesn't really matter, as it's what's in the posts that person has that does; It always falls on deaf ears, their is some "glory" in having a high post count. I know I like having a high post count, but I believe it should be earned somewhat, and leaving out the fun and games forum will help do that. Since you obviously can't go through each persons post and determine whether it should be counted, at least removing the count from a forum where you know the posts are not useful would help towards that goal. -Alen
  15. *Alen is too scared to delve into this topic of doctrine and how it applies. :hide * As for the author of Hebrews: (Summarized from the introduction of the book of Hebrews in my study Bible) 1. The author has superb knowledge of Jewish Levitical thought and Greek literary style. 2. Though the author seems to identify himself as a Jew (13:13) 3. Earliest sources of people accepting Pauline authorship is around 2nd century AD in the east. In the west it was rejected until around 4th century AD, when it became accepted. 4. Pauline authorship is weakened though by 2:3, showing the person had secondhand knowledge of Christ. This is contrasted with what Paul states in the book of Galatians (1:1, 1:12) 5. Alternative authors proposed are: Luke, Barnabas, Silas and Apollos. 6. What seems to argue against Pauline authorship, goes in favor towards Lucan authorship. Though since Luke is believed to be a gentile, this would argue against Lucan authorship. 7. Silas and Barnabas could of been authors, both were Jews, and Barnabas was also a Levite (Acts 4:36), as such he would of been familiar with the Levitical ritual commonly cited in this epistle. What argues against this though is lack of evidence for it, and that the early church did not regard either men as the author. 8.Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24) as such he probably would of been familiar with the philosophical thinking displayed in this epistle. He was also very well versed in the scriptures (Acts 18:24). Again the argument against this is the lack of early historical evidence. It would also be confusing as to why the early church fathers in Alexandria such as Clement and Origen, would not lay claim to one of their own as the author. -Alen
  • Create New...