I recently asked a high volume Christian poster here if, as he was clearly suggesting, "Satan was behind" all the Bibles there have ever been for the last 1,000+ years except for one version: the New World Translation.
And his answer was "yes".
No Christian challenged him on this at that time, as far as I know.
One question is [although there are undoubtedly other questions about this too]:
Which is more "divisive":
A poster asserting that "Satan was behind" all the Bible translations that Christians in this community [except him] use?
Or a poster drawing attention to the fact that this assertion had been made and had seemingly not gone unnoticed any Christians?
@chaney3 saidThe thread topic is [my query about] the Christian reaction to the assertion that "Satan was behind" all the Bible translations there have ever been published except the NWT. The canon presented in the NWT is derived from Nicea too.
My post is very relevant.
Our "bible" was conceived at Nicea.
@fmf saidIt would be right to say that Satan is the author of heresy from an occasionalist perspective so I do not see a massive issue.
I recently asked a high volume Christian poster here if, as he was clearly suggesting, "Satan was behind" all the Bibles there have ever been for the last 1,000+ years except for one version: the New World Translation.
And his answer was "yes".
No Christian challenged him on this at that time, as far as I know.
One question is [although there are undoubtedly other que ...[text shortened]... n to the fact that this assertion had been made and had seemingly not gone unnoticed any Christians?
Of course, I don't agree with him on these things, but there's a logic to it that I understand.
It's like asking me if I would be mad and attack a devout Hindu who believes I'm wrong for eating beef when the Hindu in question is merely stating a sincere belief that is accurate within his own world view.
.... What is more divisive is kind of a silly question here because no one should be concerned with that.
@philokalia saidWhat is your definition of heresy?
It would be right to say that Satan is the author of heresy from an occasionalist perspective so I do not see a massive issue.
Of course, I don't agree with him on these things, but there's a logic to it that I understand.
It's like asking me if I would be mad and attack a devout Hindu who believes I'm wrong for eating beef when the Hindu in question is merely stat ...[text shortened]... What is more divisive is kind of a silly question here because no one should be concerned with that.
1 edit
@fmf saidOne of the defining characteristics of a cult is the compulsion to produce their own translations and the condemnation all others. Sonship and galveston are in the same boat. The nice thing is that in all these translations God has ensured that the words, teachings and commandments of His Son Jesus Christ, remain untouched. What is required for eternal life in the Kingdom of God is clear, unchanged by human error. There is going to be no acceptable excuse for not following the commandments of Christ on judgment day.... So translate away.
I recently asked a high volume Christian poster here if, as he was clearly suggesting, "Satan was behind" all the Bibles there have ever been for the last 1,000+ years except for one version: the New World Translation.
And his answer was "yes".
No Christian challenged him on this at that time, as far as I know.
One question is [although there are undoubtedly other que ...[text shortened]... n to the fact that this assertion had been made and had seemingly not gone unnoticed any Christians?
@rajk999 saidTo begin with, anything that is against the Nicene creed. Though, after that, we could get into other unorthodox interpretations as examples of things that are heretical.
What is your definition of heresy?
I am not really qualified but there are things specifically stated to be wrong.
The denial of hell, or the trinity, are prime examples.
@philokalia saidIn what way is the question "silly"?
It would be right to say that Satan is the author of heresy from an occasionalist perspective so I do not see a massive issue.
Of course, I don't agree with him on these things, but there's a logic to it that I understand.
It's like asking me if I would be mad and attack a devout Hindu who believes I'm wrong for eating beef when the Hindu in question is merely stat ...[text shortened]... What is more divisive is kind of a silly question here because no one should be concerned with that.