Bad Christians...

Originally posted by Weadley
Can there be such a thing as a bad Christian.

I meant take RBHill for example..

Hates women.... used the "N" word in posts.

Certainly he is a "Bad Christian" or would he just be a "Failing Christian" by failing to act in a Christian like way towards others at this chess site.

Discuss...
No Flaming of RB either... just discuss are there good and bad christians or only good ones.

Weadley: Take RBHILL


PLEEZE!!

Originally posted by Darfius
We do not have the originals. Why are you telling him to do the impossible?

"Born again" appears to be the proper translation, though it could also say "born from above" which means the same thing (that a man must be born of the Spirit).

Born again is clearly incorrect because Jesus corrects Nicodemus's
error.

They do not mean the same thing, unless you always say 'again'
when you mean 'from above' in normal English.

Nemesio

Originally posted by RBHILL
You don't do it publiclly that is gossip. That is what a PM is for.

Good advice is good advice, however it comes. What I find amazing strange is that you must, by definition, be trying to improve yourself as a Christian, in order to prepare yourself for the right to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And yet you steadfastly cling to your stubbornness and foolish arrogance by refusing the help of others. Why? Don't you want to sit with god?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Born again is clearly incorrect because Jesus corrects Nicodemus's
error.

They do not mean the same thing, unless you always say 'again'
when you mean 'from above' in normal English.

Nemesio

That's a non sequitir. Jesus is correcting Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of the phrase "born again", not correcting Nicodemus' understanding that Jesus DID say "born again".

Within the context of the passage, they both mean the same thing. What we say in the English language in general is irrelevant to what they mean within the context of this particular passage, and that is that one must be born of the Spirit.

Originally posted by Darfius
That's a non sequitir. Jesus is correcting Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of the phrase "born again", not correcting Nicodemus' understanding that Jesus DID say "born again".

Within the context of the passage, they both mean the same thing. What we say in the English language in general is irrelevant to what they mean within the context of this particular passage, and that is that one must be born of the Spirit.

On the contrary it is of utmost importance if we are to translate another language. 'Born from above' could clearly be construed as in the manner of Jesus' birth, coming down from heaven to be born as a man. Whereas 'born again' could be construed as undergoing baptism and having the sin of your previous life washed clean, allowing you to start a second life.

The language is critical to both pre-translation interpretation by the translators and post-translation interpretation by those that read it.

Originally posted by Starrman
On the contrary it is of utmost importance if we are to translate another language. 'Born from above' could clearly be construed as in the manner of Jesus' birth, coming down from heaven to be born as a man. Whereas 'born again' could be construed as undergoing baptism and having the sin of your previous life washed clean, allowing you to start a sec ...[text shortened]... ion interpretation by the translators and post-translation interpretation by those that read it.

What is critical is context. In LIGHT of context, either phrase speaks about the same event.

Originally posted by Nemesio
No such thing as 'born again.' The fact that you continue to lie
about the contents of the Bible is an indication that you are not
a 'True Believer.'

Nemesio

Here we go again. How very annoying.

Originally posted by Nemesio
He is helping you out. He is pointing out your hypocritical
shortcomings. I've helped you out, too.

However, you fail to change. You fail to adapt. You fail
to make amends. A 'True Believer' would recognize this.

Nemesio

.... and again.

Originally posted by Darfius
What is critical is context. In LIGHT of context, either phrase speaks about the same event.

And what about in other text where such things occur and the meanings differ? Would those situations also by only contexually critical?

EDIT: They would not of course and so we must apply the same guidelines to both types of passage.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Weadley: Take RBHILL


PLEEZE!!

..... and again.

Originally posted by Starrman
And what about in other text where such things occur and the meanings differ? Would those situations also by only contexually critical?

EDIT: They would not of course and so we must apply the same guidelines to both types of passage.

You are confusing yourself and others.

Provide an example of "this other text" you speak of.

Originally posted by Darfius
You are confusing yourself and others.

Provide an example of "this other text" you speak of.

I mean other passages in the bible, as should have been obvious. Or are you saying you misinterpreted my use of language?

Originally posted by Starrman
I mean other passages in the bible, as should have been obvious. Or are you saying you misinterpreted my use of language?

Give a specific example and explain what you mean. It appears as if you are intentionally obfuscating.

Originally posted by Darfius
Give a specific example and explain what you mean. It appears as if you are intentionally obfuscating.

Balls does it. You know as well as I do that there are many passages in the bible which are constantly under interpretive debate.

Originally posted by Starrman
Balls does it. You know as well as I do that there are many passages in the bible which are constantly under interpretive debate.

What does that have to do with whether or not ALL instances of verses where another translation is possible making the verses contingent upon the translation for meaning?

For instance, in Galatians 1:3, in the phrase "our Lord Jesus Christ", one textual variant is "the Lord Jesus Christ". Does the word "the" rather than "our" change the meaning of Galatians 1:3? Obviously not.