1. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    30 Oct '07 12:06
    tuned in lst night and they were on about back to basics with the bible, genraly doing the all the rest have god wrong and this is what he ment. They even kept refering to the right reverand so and so did this and said that which proves there point??. No names etc just referances even giong in one sentence from peter quote to old testerment did not have time to look them up!! to see if they were quoting correctly or not. very annoying even for a christian.
  2. Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    1295
    30 Oct '07 13:50
    Originally posted by stoker
    tuned in lst night and they were on about back to basics with the bible, genraly doing the all the rest have god wrong and this is what he ment. They even kept refering to the right reverand so and so did this and said that which proves there point??. No names etc just referances even giong in one sentence from peter quote to old testerment did not have time ...[text shortened]... look them up!! to see if they were quoting correctly or not. very annoying even for a christian.
    Was that on Premier?
  3. Diverse City
    Joined
    27 Aug '07
    Moves
    956
    30 Oct '07 21:33
    Originally posted by stoker
    tuned in lst night and they were on about back to basics with the bible, genraly doing the all the rest have god wrong and this is what he ment. They even kept refering to the right reverand so and so did this and said that which proves there point??. No names etc just referances even giong in one sentence from peter quote to old testerment did not have time ...[text shortened]... look them up!! to see if they were quoting correctly or not. very annoying even for a christian.
    it it was 88.5 then they were probably quoting correctly
  4. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    30 Oct '07 22:20
    Originally posted by stoker
    tuned in lst night and they were on about back to basics with the bible, genraly doing the all the rest have god wrong and this is what he ment. They even kept refering to the right reverand so and so did this and said that which proves there point??. No names etc just referances even giong in one sentence from peter quote to old testerment did not have time ...[text shortened]... look them up!! to see if they were quoting correctly or not. very annoying even for a christian.
    Generally, I find most of what is on Christian radio to be anemic.
    That isn't to say there's nothing to learn, it's just that the so-called teachers try in vain to produce in the hearers the ability to walk the christian walk with information designed for the Jews thousands of years ago.
    "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

    But, if you want to know what it means to be a christian, and learn how to walk the christian walk, then you need to focus on that body of doctrine designed for the christian today. Namely, the Pauline epistles.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 Oct '07 06:08
    Originally posted by josephw
    But, if you want to know what it means to be a christian, and learn how to walk the christian walk, then you need to focus on that body of doctrine designed for the christian today. Namely, the Pauline epistles.
    You mean - if you want to be a Paulian. So what must the people 2000 years from now focus on? Which books were written for them?
  6. Joined
    02 Apr '06
    Moves
    3637
    31 Oct '07 08:29
    Originally posted by stoker
    tuned in lst night and they were on about back to basics with the bible, genraly doing the all the rest have god wrong and this is what he ment. They even kept refering to the right reverand so and so did this and said that which proves there point??. No names etc just referances even giong in one sentence from peter quote to old testerment did not have time ...[text shortened]... look them up!! to see if they were quoting correctly or not. very annoying even for a christian.
    we have a God Channel (TV) here in the UK, and every time I look at it there is some crew who are constantly banging on about how you have to donate money for you and your family to be saved (the implication if not explictly stated) ; and your names will appear on a Wall (of Mercy or something); and there is only room for another few hundred etc etc.

    It is not what I would have thought of as anything to do with God.
  7. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    31 Oct '07 14:02
    Originally posted by Jay Joos
    Was that on Premier?
    yes are u some one conected?
  8. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    31 Oct '07 14:09
    Originally posted by josephwyears ago.
    . Namely, the Pauline epistles.[/b]
    whos pauline??, is she some new doctrine!! know of a sister from poland who died in 1937 of TB sister of mercy, name unshure of its spelling
  9. Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    1295
    31 Oct '07 15:36
    Originally posted by stoker
    yes are u some one conected?
    no... heard the same thing as you...
  10. Joined
    03 Oct '07
    Moves
    655
    31 Oct '07 22:08
    Originally posted by stoker
    whos pauline??, is she some new doctrine!! know of a sister from poland who died in 1937 of TB sister of mercy, name unshure of its spelling
    Not sure if you were sincere or not, but he (or she) meant the writings of the Apostle Paul...

    ...And to that thought, I'm sorry but I don't worship Paul, I worship Jesus the Christ. We must take the Bible as a whole and quit cutting it up into pieces so that we can choose how we worship God as if it were a buffet. Picking and choosing which parts of scripture we will believe will lead to very big problems as evidenced by the sheer number of denominations we have today.
  11. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    01 Nov '07 10:57
    Iagree the bible will be the basis, but if we think god has said nothing else then we are misleading ourselves. God has more thoughts in one day than there are letters in the hole bible. The trouble we have is seperating the wheat from the chaff.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Nov '07 11:10
    Originally posted by SourJax
    We must take the Bible as a whole and quit cutting it up into pieces so that we can choose how we worship God as if it were a buffet. Picking and choosing which parts of scripture we will believe will lead to very big problems as evidenced by the sheer number of denominations we have today.
    And how many of those denominations claim to be doing just that (taking the Bible as a whole)?
    The denominations have as much to do with interpretation as they do with selection and quite a lot to do with tradition.

    The main reason you cant take the Bible as a whole is that it keeps contradicting itself.
  13. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    01 Nov '07 11:20
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And how many of those denominations claim to be doing just that (taking the Bible as a whole)?
    The denominations have as much to do with interpretation as they do with selection and quite a lot to do with tradition.

    The main reason you cant take the Bible as a whole is that it keeps contradicting itself.
    Sorry missed the w in my last post, i do not have my reading glasses with me and having troble. Ido not think the bible does as you say. but each generation reads it to there thinking, But the taking of a bit from here and there does give someone of there own view the missguided interpritation. (hope the spelling is ok)
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Nov '07 12:21
    Originally posted by stoker
    Ido not think the bible does as you say. but each generation reads it to there thinking, But the taking of a bit from here and there does give someone of there own view the missguided interpritation. (hope the spelling is ok)
    But then the Bible itself is essentially meaningless on its own because the correct interpretation is essential to actually know what it means.
    There are many well known contradictions in the Bible which by any normal reading are undeniably contradictions. However, the use of secret decoder rings normally clears that problem up.
    But if it is the interpreted version that is without contradiction then one can hardly meaningfully talk about the uninterpreted version that is on paper.

    So what do you think we should do, since you have made it clear that the problem is peoples interpretation? Should we all follow your interpretation? Or do you believe (as you imply) that there is a special perfect interpretation based on taking the Bible as a whole?
  15. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Nov '07 13:46
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But then the Bible itself is essentially meaningless on its own because the correct interpretation is essential to actually know what it means.
    There are many well known contradictions in the Bible which by any normal reading are undeniably contradictions. However, the use of secret decoder rings normally clears that problem up.
    But if it is the interpr ...[text shortened]... you imply) that there is a special perfect interpretation based on taking the Bible as a whole?
    If you say something often and loud enough, it surely must be true.
Back to Top