#0 · Apr 03, 2003, 19:24 · sublime
he told me that when my mother was giving birth to both my brother and i, she spoke in tongues both times. he also said that there were many times while he was growing up that he would be driving or doing nothing out of the ordinary and he would feel what he described as a "whelling" up in his chest and then he would blurt something out in tongues. he went to see a priest or something about it and recalled a phrase that he spoke and the priest translated it to something like "God Lord Almighty" or something of that nature.
I was just wondering if anyone has any information on this phenomenon and what it may possibly mean?
Mike
#1 · Apr 03, 2003, 20:38 · kakkarot
so he got me to close my eyes and he put his hand on my forehead and told me to say what he said. then he began talking complete jibberish. not some real language, just a whole bunch of garbage that came off the top of his head. so i tried repeating that at the rate he was going at, but i had to keep stopping because i couldn't make out what he was saying so i couldn't repeat it. but then he told me that i wasn't supposed to be saying what he was saying, but that i was supposed to just start talking (ie, spouting crap off). so i did.
next thing i know he's (lightly) pushing on my forehead, tilting me backwards. in my mind i was like "woah. don't wanna fall and break my neck." so i pushed back against it, at which time he told me not to. but i didn't listen to him.
so needless to say, i really wasn't impressed with him.
but other than the frauds and morons out there, speaking in tounges is something that happens, just not very often. or at least not very often (partly) due to the fact that people dismiss it as "just plain crazy" a lot.
what it means, i don't know. any more info, sorry i don't know much about it. the original speaking in tounges, though, was done in such a way that when the apostles spoke, each bystander who heard the apostles heard what the apostles were saying in their (the bystander's) native language; so many people of many different languages all understood what was being said, even though it was never translated into each "tounge" specifically.
~kakkarot
#2 · Apr 04, 2003, 11:22 · Adrian
This is usually associated with past lives - specifically, under certain circumstances, e.g. stress, trance etc., the subject regresses to a past life in another part of the world.
This happens alot with young children (under 5 years of age), who are still very much in touch with their higher selves and the higher/inner spheres. Many children have suddenly started to speak languages and dialects that have been extinct and forgotten for hundreds of years, and in totally different parts of the world.
With best regards,
Adrian.
#3 · Apr 04, 2003, 12:05 · PeacefulWarrior
Are tongues the initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Evidences pointing to tongues being the initial evidence
Tongues were obviously significantly associated with the Holy Spirit's initializing of the believer into the new covenant of Christ, as illustrated at Pentecost (Acts 2) and in Cornelius' home (Acts 10), and also probably in Samaria (Acts
and Ephesus (Acts 19).
(Acts 2:4 NIV) All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
(Acts 10:45-46 NIV) The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. {46} For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,
(Acts 19:6 NIV) When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
(Acts 8:17-18 NIV) Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. {18} When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money
The passage above does not mention tongues. However, it is probable that tongues or at least some kind of visible evidence is involved. This is because the passage says that Simon "saw" that the Spirit was given.
Evidences pointing to tongues not being the initial evidence
OT instances of filling by the Holy Spirit not accompanied by tongues
The experience of receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was not a new experience. It is the start of a new era in which the Spirit will be poured out more abundantly on all flesh. Peter explains that it is fulfillment of the prophesy in Joel which says that the Spirit will be poured on all people, young and old, men and women, even servants. In the Old Testament, this was not the case. The Spirit fell on key persons, empowering them to carry out the special office of God e.g. kings, prophets.
(Acts 2:17-18 NIV) "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. {18} Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
In the past, only a few selected ones are filled with the Spirit and empowered for certain tasks. While these people of the OT times were filled and empowered by the Spirit, there was no evidence of tongues.
Charismatics response
Tongues are the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit only in the New Testament period.
No evidence of Paul speaking in tongues when he first received the Holy Spirit
(Acts 9:17-19 NIV) Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." {18} Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, {19} and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.
Paul later spoke in tongues (1 Cor 14:18) but that was not the initial evidence; it was the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Why did Paul not speak in tongues when he first received the Holy Spirit? It could be because there was no need for it. Tongues serve as a sign. In the instances when the people spoke in tongues, it either served as a sign to non-believers (Acts 2) or to other believers that the ones who spoke in tongues really received the Holy Spirit and were part of them.
Tongues are described as a gift
We know that in the Corinthian church not everyone speaks in tongues.
(1 Cor 12:29-30 NIV) Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? {30} Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret?
The reason why some do not speak in tongues was not because some were not baptized in the Holy Spirit but rather some were not given that gift by the Spirit.
(1 Cor 12:4-11 NIV) There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. {5} There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. {6} There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. {7} Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. {8} To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, {9} to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, {10} to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. {11} All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
Furthermore, it is the Spirit's choice to give whomsoever He wants the ability to speak in tongues. There is no mention whatsoever of speaking in tongues being an inevitable outcome of having been baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Are tongues always human languages?
There are many instances when tongues are real languages that man can understand.
(Acts 2:4-6 NIV) All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. {5} Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. {6} When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
(Acts 10:45-46 NIV) The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. {46} For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
The fact that the Apostles understood the Gentiles tongues to be magnifying God indicated that the tongues were a know language to the Apostles.
However, there are also tongues that are not human languages.
(1 Cor 13:1 NIV) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
There are tongues of angels that man will not be able to understand.
(1 Cor 14:2 NIV) For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
Different purposes of tongues
The argument between Charismatics and non-Charismatics on what is the purpose of tongues can be simply solved if one realizes that there are more than one purpose of tongues.
Act as a sign to unbelievers
(1 Cor 14:21-22 NIV) In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. {22} Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers...
Tongues are a sign to unbelievers because when they hear the message proclaimed in their own tongues by someone who does not speak that language, it is a miraculous sign that it is God speaking through them.
(Acts 2:6-11 NIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. {7} Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? {8} Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? {9} Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, {10} Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome {11} (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs--we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"
(Acts 10:45-46 NIV) The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. {46} For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
God also used tongues to convince unbelieving Christian Jews that the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit, and that they ought to be welcomed as equals into the Church. Without tongues, the apostles would not have been convinced that the Gentiles could be saved.
When tongues are used for this purpose, it is very specific. That means that there may be long periods of time when this type of tongues cease to exist.
Acts 11:15. "As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Cornelius' house occurred eight years after Pentecost, yet Peter could not point to any continuous flow of tongues for this purpose among the churches, when he explained to the Jerusalem church leaders what had happened to the Gentiles. After eight years, Peter still had to say "As on us at the beginning", not "as on all the churches regularly". If speaking in tongues in a known language was a normal experience in churches, Peter would not have had to reach back to Pentecost to cite a similar example.
Edifying of oneself
Besides serving as "signs", there are other purposes of tongues that do not involve "signs to unbelievers".
Paul refers to the Christians speaking in tongues without interpretation in a church. Because the tongues are unknown, they do not communicate anything to people and do not serve as signs.
(1 Cor 14:2 NIV) For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
The purpose of this type of tongues is not to serve as signs but rather to edify the speaker.
(1 Cor 14:4 NIV) He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
Edifying of the church
Tongues that are accompanies by interpretation edifies the church.
(1 Cor 14:5 NIV) I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
#4 · Apr 04, 2003, 18:33 · James S
to the point of your question, I'd go along with Adrian's view. Otherwise there's the idea that your mother was unconsciously channeling, in which case why? Perhaps some kind of prayer or ward of protection?
Easy to see why so many christian churches are so confused about the matter. As P.W. just showed, there are several different biblical ways to interpret the nature of tongues, each with scriptures to substantiate the view.
Kakkarot,
I've so been in that situation! You described word for word my experiences. Seems like there are bible schools out there that teach up & coming pastors how to subtley push people over then carry on about them being "slain in the spirit". What a crock!
I do believe it is a genuine gift that comes to people who are basically channeling spoken information from a higher source. Unfortunately I feel such people make up about 5% of a church full of people speaking in tongues. The other 95% are just switching off their brains and babbleing along in their "keeping up with the jones's" religious extacy.
I too went through the "tongues" phase. It wasn't untill I learned from my guide to shut up and sit in silence that I actually started to hear the voices of higher beings around me. I knew then that for me it was a false gift. I was just going along with what was expected of me, and it was actually causing a communication blockage!
James.
#5 · Apr 04, 2003, 19:47 · kakkarot
~kakkarot
#6 · Apr 05, 2003, 00:49 · James S
For peace loving communities some churches have some really violent terms for things. I suppose when you consider its all about Going to War with the Devil!!!
Either that or just consider it religious jargon!
Just wait...soon the church industry will be as bad as the computer industry.
Slain in the spirit will become SITS, or just STS, cause you gotta use a TLA!
James.
#7 · Apr 05, 2003, 15:05 · kakkarot
when i feel the presence of God i certainly don't feel slain (humbled yes, but slain no). like if i wanted to SLAY someone's spirit, they wouldn't just be falling over and giggling about how they can't move (and crying because of a huge emotional burst from within them).
but, whatever *shrugs*, i've pretty much given up on religion a long time ago. i search for the truth, and religion may be a good starting point, but it certainly gets in the way after a while (stigma, dogma, norms and customs, traditions, "laws", etc that all divert one's attention from seeking the truth about it all.)
oops, sorry to get off topic sublime [:I]
~kakkarot
#8 · Apr 05, 2003, 20:59 · sublime
haha it's ok to get off subject, i am becoming confused with my original question anyways because it seems as if there really isnt an answer (that anyone knows of)... oh and your story in your first post was quite humerous.
Peace Warrior,
i find it very interesting to see many different uses/examples of uses of tongues in the bible.. i just wish i knew which one fit my situations.
sometimes i'd like to think that it means something about my brother and i, and the fact that i have spontaneous projections and have never projected willingly sometimes leads me to believe that there HAS to be a reason for all of this... who knows?
#9 · Apr 08, 2003, 16:22 · kakkarot
good luck finding answers[
].
~kakkarot
#10 · Apr 10, 2003, 09:13 · Nightfall
quote:No it doesn't. Being "Slain in the Spirit" is unbiblical and cannot be found in the bible anywhere in relation to christians.
Originally posted by kakkarot
"slain in the spirit" that's what he called it too. but where the heck did they ever get that term from[V]? it just doesn't make sense to call it that[xx(].
#11 · Apr 10, 2003, 09:20 · Nightfall
quote:Then she isn't a christian.
Originally posted by James S
Otherwise there's the idea that your mother was unconsciously channeling, in which case why? Perhaps some kind of prayer or ward of protection?
First, the bible forbids a believer from being a medium. Being a medium and a christian are mutually exclusive.
Second, tounges is A gift. It is not THE gift. There are many gifts listed in the bible, Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 both give you a list. A christian can have any gift(s) in those lists, but tounges is not a requisite.
quote:There is confusion because chruches do not read their bible. Pretty simple really. Everybody is out for "well, I FEEL that it means this". We don't do that when it comes to reading a newspaper, why do that when it comes to the bible?
Easy to see why so many christian churches are so confused about the matter.
quote:Yup.
Seems like there are bible schools out there that teach up & coming pastors how to subtley push people over then carry on about them being "slain in the spirit". What a crock!
#12 · Apr 10, 2003, 09:23 · Nightfall
quote:Then we are not talking about "speaking in tounges" because that is strictly a biblical term. What you are talking about is not biblical therefore the term cannot apply.
Originally posted by Adrian
This is usually associated with past lives - specifically, under certain circumstances, e.g. stress, trance etc., the subject regresses to a past life in another part of the world.
quote:How do you know this? If the languages have been "forgotten", then what's to say that it isn't just "babble"? How do you know it's a "forgotten" language? =)
This happens alot with young children (under 5 years of age), who are still very much in touch with their higher selves and the higher/inner spheres. Many children have suddenly started to speak languages and dialects that have been extinct and forgotten for hundreds of years, and in totally different parts of the world.
#13 · Apr 10, 2003, 11:22 · goingslow
The bible is full of contradictions thats often why people dont follow it literally.
Are you here to preach or learn? I'll ive seen you do so far is preach on christianity nightfall.
#14 · Apr 10, 2003, 12:02 · Nightfall
quote:For example?
Originally posted by goingslow
The bible is full of contradictions thats often why people dont follow it literally.
quote:Both actually. I study cults and world religions and compare them to biblical christianity. [
Are you here to preach or learn? I'll ive seen you do so far is preach on christianity nightfall.
]
#15 · Apr 10, 2003, 12:13 · Nightfall
quote:Oh, I guess I should address this too because people like to argue this.
Originally posted by goingslow
I love when people come on here stating who is a christian and who isnt.
I'm not here judging who IS or ISN'T a christian. That's not my job.
However, the term "Christian" has been watered down and it's become a rather useless term in some circles. When I say "Christian" I mean it in the biblical and historic sense of : a disciple of Christ.
Now, to deny Christ or His teachings would then make you NOT a disciple of Christ. Therefore you cannot call yourself a "Christ-ian".
Take for example the term gentleman. Originally it meant someone who has lands and title. It was not linked in anyway to his character. A man would be a right rotter and still be considered a "gentleman". Today, the term has been redefined to mean someone of character regardless of actual title or social standing.
So unless you are will to define what you mean by "christian", I assume that it is to be used in the historic and biblical sense of the term. In which case you cannot be a medium and a "christian". Because to be a medium would be to deny biblical doctrine and therefore Christ himself.
I hope that I have clarified the term a little bit?
#16 · Apr 10, 2003, 12:43 · goingslow
Do you study it in its original language or the enlish version?
I think being a christian has to do with christ. What if a person is a christian, but because of experience believes that a medium can communicate with a spirit? Does that mean they suddenly have to drop all their christian beliefs?
Im not speaking about me because I have no desire to label myself as a christian. I believe what I believe and the term Christian to me only shows you believe in christ. I think the other things were added on by the various churches and people's interpretation of the bible.
One more question do you believe in astral projection and OBE? Im pretty sure many christians would say that would make a person not christian. If you dont believe in it, then do you think the people here who believe in OBE can not be christians?
#17 · Apr 10, 2003, 13:35 · Nightfall
quote:Say what? The thing about the term gentleman? Just joking. Actually the gentleman thing I borrowed from CS Lewis in his work "Mere Christianity". A fantastic book if you want to know what mere christianity is all about. He gave his book that title because he wanted to dig in past denominations and private interpretations to present the most essential and most vital doctrines of Christianity. Therefore : Mere Christianity.
Originally posted by goingslow
Okay I can see that. I am curious though did Jesus say that himself?
But I'm assuming that you are asking about what Jesus said in regards to being a christian.
The term "christian" was first coined in Antioch. Around 43 ad. And it was used in reference to "disciples". Not the 11 specifically, but those who were called disciples of Jesus.
Jesus said in Matthew 16 "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
We follow Jesus and what He taught. Not what we personally think about things ourselves. Not our own theories. The heart is a deceitful thing and can easily lead people into dangerous things.
People make a big deal about devotion to Mary. However, Jesus said that those who hear His words and keep His commandments have the same access to God that Mary does (Luke 11). When asked about His family, He said who is my mother, my brothers, my sisters? Those who hear my words and keep them are the same as my mother, my brothers and my sisters (mark 3).
To be a christian is to be a disciple. The definition of disciple is "One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another".
quote:It depends on what I'm studying. There are some "christian cults" who rely on a general ignorance of the original languages, therefore I've had to learn some greek and some hebrew. I would not begin to call myself a scholar of biblical languages. However, I do know enough of the languages to have confidence in the translations of the bible. The main translations I use are the kjv, nkjv, niv, and the nasb. The king james is the oldest english translation but I find that the new translations have better translations of the greek text for some verses.
Do you study it in its original language or the enlish version?
quote:Umm, maybe you could clarify your question. Are you saying that a person becomes a christian because of a medium-istic experience? Or are you asking about someone who is already a christian but comes to believe in spiritistic things?
What if a person is a christian, but because of experience believes that a medium can communicate with a spirit? Does that mean they suddenly have to drop all their christian beliefs?
quote:Both of your statements are true. But I would add a couple of qualifications to them. First, which Christ do you believe in? The mormons have a version of Jesus, so do the jehovah witnesses, so do the bahai, so do the christian scientists, all of these religions and cults have a VERSION of Jesus yet they would be in error because these teachings are NON-biblical - they are nowhere to be found in scripture.
I believe what I believe and the term Christian to me only shows you believe in christ. I think the other things were added on by the various churches and people's interpretation of the bible.
The second point goes along with the first : people HAVE added to the christian belief based on their own assumptions. The reason we have denominations is because of private interpretations of the bible. This isn't always a bad thing, however, if the bible has authority in your life, there are some things that are not only contrary to the bible, but are heretical and in conflict with biblical teachings. The people who would accept the bible as authoritative cannot affirm it and deny it at the same time.
quote:Humm, interesting question.
One more question do you believe in astral projection and OBE? Im pretty sure many christians would say that would make a person not christian. If you dont believe in it, then do you think the people here who believe in OBE can not be christians?
I would say that as with everything, there are fakers, frauds and the real thing. There are those who are fake. There are those who would rob people of money. And there are those who are hooked into something very real.
Yes, I do believe there have been documented cases of astral projection and obe. I believe there have been documented cases of spiritism, levitation, among various other phenomina.
However, I would qualify that by saying that a christian is to have no part of any of those things.
To admit that something exists does not mean I endorse it.
For all my research, I will admit that I'm just now getting into spiritualistic study. There are many topics that I want more information on (including but not limited to astral projection, esp, tarot, etc), that's why I'm here. I've spent the last 3 years studying jehovah witnesses, mormons, and philosophy as my primary topics, with various other religions (bahai, islam, etc) as secondary topics.
Philosophy is a new and interesting area of study for me. I'm very excited about what I'm finding in that area.
Oh, by the way, thank you for the polite response. I have no intention of coming across as holier than thou, or arrogant. I'm neither of those in real life but some things are lost in the posting of mere text.
#18 · Apr 10, 2003, 16:54 · kakkarot
quote:-nightfall
Yes, I do believe there have been documented cases of astral projection and obe. I believe there have been documented cases of spiritism, levitation, among various other phenomina.
However, I would qualify that by saying that a christian is to have no part of any of those things.
such in itself would be denying the Christ. Did not Jesus himself perform miracles and many other "unearthly" acts? perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it. [|)] (ie. faith, hope, and love)
~kakkarot
#19 · Apr 10, 2003, 21:31 · James S
James
#20 · Apr 10, 2003, 21:50 · goingslow
James:
Not on my side we're not. I dont have religious debates. No one ever changes their mind when they know what the word of God is and they only see it as an opportunity to get you to see the light.
Nightfall: I had written something then realized you had answered it already. Ill reread tomorrow again because Im still unsure if you're just saying what christianity is or if you're saying its your own belief. Too tired to comprehend it all now.
#21 · Apr 10, 2003, 22:00 · James S
I like the fact you tend to keep religious dogma out of discussions.
James.
#22 · Apr 11, 2003, 11:06 · Nightfall
quote:Ah, but you cannot have the letter of the law without the spirit of the law in christianity.
Originally posted by kakkarot
such in itself would be denying the Christ. Did not Jesus himself perform miracles and many other "unearthly" acts? perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it. [|)] (ie. faith, hope, and love)
The issue isn't whether or not Jesus did or did not do miracles. The issue is who or where the source of that power comes from. If it comes from the God of the bible, then yes, a christian has the "ability" (it's not really an ability or something learned like calculus - but more of a gift than anything) to lay hands on the sick and heal, the christian has the gift to do miracles, but only in the name of Jesus.
This is quite different than channeling energy, forgive me because I'm ignorant in this area (a recognized need that I hope to remedy) and asking spirit guides for help.
In the one, I submit myself to the God who has revealed Himself in this world by many proofs and I have "faith", or confidence based on His past performance, that He will not change and that I can rely on His charater and word.
In the other, I don't understand how someone could have confidence in untested spirits. If the spirits ARE tested, maybe someone could enlighten me as to how you would go about testing such spirits. =)
James, no, I'm not here to push dogma and junk like that. I'll converse, but don't really like the idea of "debate" simply because debates have the nasty habit of forcing people to religiously push one idea or another regardless of truth. I'll converse because where truth is the ultimate goal, reason and logic should be employed. But thank you for your excitement!
#23 · Apr 11, 2003, 14:45 · Nightfall
quote:You are correct. The cross was a shameful thing. It was not a noble symbol nor a noble death. The cross was reserved for the lowest of the low, the most vicious and most disgusting of criminals.
Originally posted by timeless
My interpertation of this is very different from yours. At the point that Jesus said this he had not yet been crucified nor had the cross become the symbol of christianity.
I personally find it interesting that catholics cross themselves. I sometimes wonder how that would work if Jesus had been killed via electric chair. Make it a little more difficult to make the sign of the electric chair...
quote:Ahh, you are exactly correct in what you say in the first part. See, the cross does symbolize sacrifice, it symbolizes the idea of denying yourself and your selfish desires. Buddhism has a similar concept but the concepts are based on very different principles.
At that time I would expect the cross to symbolize sacrifice. In other words I would see a Christian as someone who takes up his cross and sacrifices himself, all his beliefs, social beliefs everything and follows Jesus' example. No 'disipleship' (I know not a word but it says what I mean) required.
But I agree on your first point.
Now the question of the second point is : What was Jesus example?
You can see His example in the gospel writings. How He healed the sick, how He had compassion on the untouchable lepers, how He consoled the broken hearted, how He raged against religious hypocrites, how He frightened the religious leaders and at the same time children were drawn to Him.
You can also see His example in a summary statement by Paul : that a christian should have the same attitude as Jesus did. That even though He was God in the flesh, even though He had all power, He humbled Himself even to the point of a servant. Even to the point of His own death and even the humiliating death of the cross.
So no matter what your station is in life, as a christian, you should humble yourself even if it means your death.
But it's important to note that in addition to carrying "a cross", we must also "follow Him". How do we do that? By being a disciple. A disciple is one who follows and one who relates particular teachings.
quote:Humm, you'll have to clarify your position on how Paul failed more often than not. I guess I don't understand where your coming from on that.
Following Jesus' example would mean following his example not someone else in the bible like Paul who even admitted that he had a heck of a time trying to follow Jesus's example and failed from time to time (more often then not in my opinion).
But Paul made it a point that we should follow him as he follows Christ. He made that point because a lot of the churches he founded were having problems. Big problems. Most of his letters were to put out a fire or to clarify doctrines.
Paul is an excellent example to follow. He didn't ever claim he was equal to Jesus, but he recognized his own problems and then asked the question "Who will deliver me from this body of death? I do what I don't want to do, and what I want to do, I don't do!". But the writings of Paul are very important for a lot of different reasons.
His letter to the Roman people is probably the most important book in the bible since it lays out how someone can't "earn" a good standing with God. He lays out mans position and God's remedy for evil as well as God's love for man. Awesome book.
quote:hehe, sounds like you've talked with religious zealots in the past.
Of course, my interpertation flies in the face of all other religious interpertations so I imagine while my interpertation is interesting it has to be wrong, right!
I fly in the face of a lot of religious interpretations so I don't take issue with that. My only concern is whether or not something is true.
#24 · Apr 11, 2003, 19:17 · kakkarot
]. and sorry sublime for getting off topic [:I].
i know that you two (timeless and nightfall) have been having a discussion, but i won't jump into that. [|)]
however, to clarify why i said "perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it", it is because the old law was imperfect in that it relied on people to follow "letter of the law" (the old law in and of itself wasn't imperfect, but the fact that people were only "saved" based on being able to follow the letter of the law was the imperfection of it).
the new law is based upon the grace and mercy of God, without which all humanity is doomed [|)](myself included [
]). the new "law" does not rely upon how well we can follow it: its saving factor does not rely upon humans at all. it relies upon God.
so really the letter of the law only matters to those who still think they are saved/condemned by it, even though they aren't. [
] we are not saved by any rightgeous acts we do, but only by the grace and mercy of our Lord (i don't know off hand who that is paraphrasing, but someone else might). (the whole doing of acts through faith thing is not to "prove" ourselves or to make us worthy of salvation, but to 1) put our "money where our mouth is" and prove to the world that we really are different when we decide to go God's way, and 2) do God's will as He wants us to do.)
~kakkarot
#25 · Apr 12, 2003, 08:06 · James S
Besides, I could really get to like Nightfall...
Anyone who quotes Terry Pratchett has got to be a good sort![^]
James.
#26 · Apr 13, 2003, 12:57 · Adrian
The cross has been a sacred symbol from the beginning, and among most civilisations from the Mayans to the Alanteans to the Celts.
I believe that the equilateral cross has a similar, if not identical universal meaning. The vertical axis of the cross represents the middle pillar of higher consciousness as it extends from Malkuth at its lower aspect, to The "All" (Divine Providence, The Akasha Principle)at its very highest aspect. The horizontal axis represents all of creation based in the physical aspect of consciousness, in which we all now exist. The intersection of the axis then represents the aspiration of the true seeker, the initiate, in the ongoing ascent and path, and his/her aspiration ultimately to Cosmic or Divine consciousness. The equilateral cross in absolute terms therefore respresents the goal of us all, that of Spiritual ascent and truth, and ultimately the objective of perfection and unity with "The All".
Of course - this has little of nothing to do with the christian cross which was adopted retrospectively as a symbol of the "crusifixion".
With best regards,
Adrian.
#27 · Apr 13, 2003, 14:17 · Lysear
The cross, it is argued, is actually a symbol of fertility. The upward bar as the errect penis, and the upper bar represents the female. This is much easier to see when you think of older versions of the cross where there was a loop at the top as well. But perhaps the modern cross also has these sexual connotations?
#28 · Apr 13, 2003, 16:07 · goingslow
At this point it has to do with what it represents and I never see any good coming out of mocking something which to others has meaning.
I chose to wear a cross because of what it represents to me.
Another thing I dont understand is people who talk about going through all these different beliefs as if its a sign of progression. They seem to honestly believe just because they went through a form of worshiping nature to modern christianity and now to "real" interpretations of the bible thats what the natural progression is.
I happened to be raised catholic but even then I never conformed to that religion. I didn't go through a catholic phase where I argued catholicism over every other religion. Since I was a kid i would argue the parts I didnt believe in such as you had to be baptised to go to heaven. I knew since a young age i should figure it out for myself. I think I was closer to the truth then than to a person who is a devout baptist, then a devout catholic. Then a person who's into "new age stuff". Seems they're looking for the truth in all these organized religion.
When a person says they've been through so many faiths Im more likely to let them move through the current one than waste my time debating.
I myself am still searching for the "truth" but im not doing it by arguing against any religion and conforming to a new perspective. I mean "real christianity" now? Why even bother?
I just get a little tired of people who have now found their "real religion" insulting others. What is the true interpretation of the bible? You're not even reading the original language it has already been interpreted.
#29 · Apr 14, 2003, 12:48 · Nightfall
quote:Terry is the man.
Originally posted by James S
Anyone who quotes Terry Pratchett has got to be a good sort![^]
James.
#30 · Apr 14, 2003, 12:50 · Nightfall
quote:Humm, interesting. May I ask what faith you follow? Just curious.
Originally posted by kakkarot
however, to clarify why i said "perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it", it is because the old law was imperfect in that it relied on people to follow "letter of the law" (the old law in and of itself wasn't imperfect, but the fact that people were only "saved" based on being able to follow the letter of the law was the imperfection of it).
Paul makes a very good presenation in his letter to the Romans in that salvation has always been through God's grace and God's mercy and never by following the law. The law was a mere tutor which was meant to point the way to God and not a means to an end in itself.
#31 · Apr 14, 2003, 13:04 · Nightfall
quote:That is a VERY good observation. Even in the church today we have followers and not disciples. A true christian is forced to be a disciple. Even Jesus makes the distinction between disciples and followers. A disciple is one who has a relationship with Him and not just in name only. Matthew chapter 7 is a good example of that.
Originally posted by timeless
A lot of people followed Jesus around. They were called followers. They were not necessarily disciples. The disciples were taught in detail by Jesus and had close conversation with him and insight into his ways. I don't think as a follower I can claim to be a disciple.
quote:You and me both.
Personally I think there are an awful lot of people out there that think they are disciples because they are followers and blindly lead the blind with their interpertations.
quote:Ah, but Jesus also said that He would send the Holy Spirit who would lead us into all truth. John the disciple said that since we have the Holy Spirit we have no need for someone to teach us.
They allow each person to judge themselves not set up an endless set of 'interperted rules' to govern and control others. So I do not buy that all Christian followers are automatically disciples that should be interperting and setting up rules for others as if they have the master's insight. To likely it is the blind leading the blind.
I think the biggest problem in the church is that people do not read the bible and rely only on other people's interpretation.
quote:Humm, interesting. Have you studied Paul personally or did someone show you what Paul wrote regarding women?
As a woman you can imagine my opinion of Paul is not all that high. Especially since I braid my hair and am not submissive to my husband. You know what Paul thought about women like that. Want an apple![
quote:Actually he wasn't confused at all. His point in that particular passage is that he was doomed outside of Christ for he wrote in the next chapter : "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. "
Sure glad I'm not this confused and Jesus the master certainly wasn't. Paul kind of discredits himself here as a master. Thank goodness or I would still be in the kitchen.[
quote:I apologize as well Sublime.
Anywho...at this point I should likely be very frank with you, especially since I have hi-jacked sublimes thread. Sorry sublime[:I].
quote:Humm, what is "reality"? I'm curious. What is "God"?
The hidden flaw to this certainty was that I was denying the validity of much of reality. It was just another cookie cutter mold I had jumped into. Life is too big and God is to big to be contained in the interpertated rules of any scripture. People could blindly be bickering over those interpertations for years and miss the real point.
I'll agree that people will bicker over scripture. I will be doing my best to get people to read their own bibles. Once they do that it's not longer "Well, I THINK it says this" or "I feel that it means THIS", naw, it should be "the scripture says this". Then it's no longer my interpretation vs your interpretation because we both have functioning brains and it's about time christians started using them. =)
#32 · Apr 14, 2003, 13:10 · Nightfall
quote:Humm, who else has been using my analogy?
Originally posted by goingslow
I get a little tired of the electric chair analogy. If you chose not to wear a cross or to disregard its meaning thats fine but I get tired of people who put it down and even call it disgraceful.
I would never put down the cross of Christ. However, what christians SHOULD understand is that the cross was a disgraceful symbol. The early church would have been abhorred that it was used as jewlery.
quote:What does it represent to you? I'm curious.
I chose to wear a cross because of what it represents to me.
quote:There is never an excuse for insulting others. Has it appeared that I have done that here?
I just get a little tired of people who have now found their "real religion" insulting others. What is the true interpretation of the bible? You're not even reading the original language it has already been interpreted.
If I translated the original language for you would that carry any more weight than me quoting from a recognized translation? I could do that. It would be hard to read since I would be giving you the straight dope, but I could do that. Just would it make any difference or be in any way more impressive? Or any more sincere?
#33 · Apr 14, 2003, 13:23 · kakkarot
the cross is a symbol of disgrace to those who view it as what it was mainly used for and not what God used it for (kind of ironic though, eh?)
i follow God's will: there is only one faith.
(side note: the literal translation of the bible from the greek language is really neat, especially the sentence structures. i think everyone should check it out sometime. it really makes you think about the decisions that the translators had to make when rearranging the sentences so that it would be understandable to english-reading people.)
"Paul makes a very good presenation in his letter to the Romans in that salvation has always been through God's grace and God's mercy and never by following the law. The law was a mere tutor which was meant to point the way to God and not a means to an end in itself." bingo, that's the point i was trying to make all along. good to see that you already know it. [|)]
~kakkarot
#34 · Apr 14, 2003, 13:55 · sublime
it sort of got off topic but you guys go ahead
#35 · Apr 14, 2003, 14:25 · goingslow
Bill hicks said it over and over and it was even in that article "freedom of choice" adrian put up in another thread.
As far as what does it mean to me. I feel no need to say that here. I dont sit around jumping from religion to religion in order to debate and try to sound intelligent.
If anything is disgraceful its a person jumping from religion to religion like its a sport. DEbating how each new found religion is superior to the last one you were into.
Get over yourself. You're not onto something now with your "real interpretations". I feel no need to talk to a know it all religious person only here to push his views on other people.
#36 · Apr 14, 2003, 14:31 · goingslow
Im so sick of know it all christians personally. Hope you dont turn every thread into a religious debate though. So far you've preached in almost everyone.
#37 · Apr 14, 2003, 14:48 · Nightfall
quote:Link?
Originally posted by goingslow
Nightfall i hope you dont think you made that up.
Bill hicks said it over and over and it was even in that article "freedom of choice" adrian put up in another thread.
quote:Humm, when did I ever imply that I jumped from religion to religion? In my intro on the main page? If you want to know details, my intro spans a 15 year time period.
If anything is disgraceful its a person jumping from religion to religion like its a sport. DEbating how each new found religion is superior to the last one you were into.
quote:Ah, and when exactly have I "pushed" anything? I came on as a christian and therefore I can say what a christian is or is not because christians take the bible as their authority and it defines what a christian is or is not.
Get over yourself. You're not onto something now with your "real interpretations". I feel no need to talk to a know it all religious person only here to push his views on other people.
Just as I would expect you to speak authoritatively in your arena. If you do not, then the question becomes : why speak at all if you cannot explain what you have come to know as truth?
If truth does not exist at all, then all we're doing is sharing our own personal beliefs and what's to take offense at that?
If truth does exist, then wouldn't it be rather important to find out what is the ultimate truth?
#38 · Apr 14, 2003, 14:49 · Nightfall
quote:Humm, when did I declare I was the sole authority of what's right?
Originally posted by goingslow
Your interpretations of the bible are nothing different than anyone elses. You just think they are. Again the bible has already been interpreted and much has been left out. Maybe you should settle down.. look at everything first before you start declaring how right you are.
quote:Preached? You would read my posts are preaching? interesting.
Im so sick of know it all christians personally. Hope you dont turn every thread into a religious debate though. So far you've preached in almost everyone.
#39 · Apr 14, 2003, 15:02 · Frank
Yours,
Frank
#40 · Apr 14, 2003, 15:13 · Nightfall
quote:No, I'm familiar with the verses you are talking about, I was just curious if you had personally studied them. Thank you for clarifying that for me. =)
Originally posted by timeless
Yes I have read and studied Paul.
quote:Because Paul was probably the one who understood Jesus teachings better than ANYONE else at the time.
My point and question is why spend so much time on some one who CLAIMED to be chosen instead of focussing on the Master's teachings?
quote:Sorry, I would have to respectfully disagee with you here. I'm sure you expected that, so let's talk about it.
The real founder of Christianity is Saint Paul. Out of the 27 books of New Testament, 14 are attributed to him. This is true even though the teachings of Saint Paul directly contradicted those of Jesus, and his directly chosen apostles, including James.
quote:And when the young man answered that he had kept the commandments Jesus said "Follow me."
When asked what a man must do to get eternal life, Jesus advised us to follow the commandments of the Old Testament (Mark 10:19).
quote:Jesus did fulfill the law. Paul makes that very clear in Romans and Hebrews.
He further said "Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. ... till heaven and earth pass away, not an inta, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).
quote:Paul vs James is a pretty common argument in MANY circles so I've been forced to study the issue.
Apostle James wrote, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).
"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Romans 3:28)
If you get a chance, look at Romans 4 and James 2. If you happen to have a bible, look at the references that are given when both these passages talk about Abraham.
Romans 4 will give you Genesis 15. James will give you Genesis 22.
What's the point? Paul says that Abraham was justified because of his faith (Genesis 15). So as far as God was concerned ol Abe was righteous.
James says that "it was fulfilled" and he points to Genesis 22. James is writing to Christians and James is telling them that Abraham fulfilled Genesis 15 by lifting the knife in Genesis 22. James is making the point that "Look guys, you claim you have faith, you claim to believe in one God, you claim all this stuff but how do I know? I can only know what you believe by what you do".
In other words, before God abraham was justified in Genesis 15 by his faith. Before men, Abraham was justified in Genesis 22 before men by what he did. You've got a time period of 44 or so years between Genesis 15 and Genesis 22.
quote:I see that you believe Paul wrote Hebrews. Good, I do too. Yes, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Jesus fulfilled that. He fulfilled the law requiring either total holiness or death. He died so to fulfilled the entire law, allowing those who would accept that free gift to have eternal life.
"Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Hebrews 9:22).
"Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (Romans 3:25).
quote:It's both. He wasn't clowning. =)
Paul is a sea of contradictions:
(1) On women he says, Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says." (1 Cor 14:34)
On the other hand he says they should have equal place within family, church and society at large. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
Hmmm! Which is it?[)][
One thing to beware of when reading ancient writings would be the cultural context. The culture at the time Paul was writing was that the men sat on one side of the temple, the women on the other. You can still see this today in Mosques and the early church was organized this way. When a teacher talked the women had the tendancy to yell over to their husbands "What does that mean?" and other such questions. So what's the solution? Wait till you get home to ask questions. Be quiet while the teaching is going on.
But I'm glad you quoted Galations, you can find the same thing in Ephesians. Paul put women on the same level as men, yet in church he had to impose restrictions on their right to speak.
In fact, Paul lays a heavier burden on the man in Ephesians. If you'd like to look at that passage we can.
But what Paul wrote was revolutionary for that time period. He said women were equal to men. And only in christianity was this ever taught. The romans had a LOT of rules regarding women. The jews had a LOT of rules regarding women. Yet God in the gospel writings and through Paul raised them up to their rightful place.
quote:Huh? Could you elaborate on this a little? I'm not sure what to respond to. Sorry.
On one hand Paul insists that salvation comes not by anything we can accomplish on our own, or by works of the law, but rather "by faith in Christ." (Gal 2:16)
On the other he says "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22) Hmmm! Now everyone runs around trying to save me! Wonderful. We all appreciate this so much!
quote:Ah, link?
(3) I could go on with contradictions about homosexuality but we have just been through this mess[xx(] and a few people might throw a few stones at me. Ouch! Warning shots mostly.
quote:Humm, I'm interested in your phrasing thoughout this post. Could you please define what a master is and is not?
Why so many contradictions in Paul? I think it is because he was not a master. WHY would do people spend so much time on a struggling student? Perhaps out of interest and curiousity? But in the end it was the master who showed us the way. Personally I will not waste anymore time on Paul. Too much gold in the masters of this world.
quote:Again, I'm interested in your phrasing. Could you tell me more about this light?
You want the truth eh! The Truth is the light. The light is the way. When you have seen the light. Your perception of the the truth will never be the same again. The light is the light (literally). When the light (literally) comes and visits you one day all this will not hold the same allure to you. All these words become an academic exercise of curiosity. This is yet another reason why I do not believe Paul's CLAIM, for words were everything to this zealous Pharisee.
But I do appreciate your polite post. I guess I've ticked off some other people, so I'm happy that you're not angry.
#41 · Apr 14, 2003, 17:28 · James S
I'll try and fit in an example here that will hopefully steer back to your original topic.
Having studied the scriptures myself for about 16 years, and attended different churches with different focuses on the scriptures, I have come to feel that theology has become more important to many christians that Christ himself.
I would submit my thoughts that the bible - the book itself is imperfect. It has been translated a great many times. It has been frequently modified over the years because of theological disagreements by church leaders, particularly during the middle ages where the sources of the original english translations were under the control of religious orders. As to the original greek and hebrew texts - just how *original* do we truly KNOW them to be.
As religious texts throughout the world go, the bible is one of the least consistent. Stack it up against the Qur'an. Every single copy of the Qur'an is identical to every other copy. If you get a copy in Iran turn to page 176, look at the third word in on the 5th line, it will be exactly the same word in exactly the same spot as a copy you might get in New York. There are no translational inconsistencies.
By comparison, a great deal of time is spent by christian theologins arguing not only interpretations, but translations. To what end? Better confusionment of christians? (Yes I made that word up, but I think it fits well anyway.) The more I studied the more I came down to this - the words of Jesus himself as recorded in the first four books of the new testament. These words are among the most accurately translated and consistent in the whole bible.
His words Are clear, easy to understand, hard to misinterpret, and if you follow what he says, most of the rest of the New Testament, especially Paul's lengthy bits of legalese, are almost redundant. If you take Jesus rather uncomplicated phrase "Love others as you would love yourself" and really take this to heart, all of the rest of the rules and regulations become unnecessary, because you will naturally start to follow them as side effect of following the teachings of Jesus.
The whole business of tounges is a really good example of how differing opinions within the christian church cloud the issue rather than making it clear. Some schools of thought will tell you it is the evidence of the Holy Spirit, others will tell you its one of the gifts of the spirit. PeacefulWarrior pointed this out very well, with many exaples to prove his point.
Exactly where do you think Sublime's mother would fit in here? Well, many other christians will tell you that its none of the above, that if she isn't a born again christian then she has to have been speaking in the tounges of demons.
Now, Sublime, your mother hasn't been practicing any strange dark rituals that you know of has she? I didn't think so.
Whatever the real cause of Sublime's mothers untranslatable oratory, it will be very hard to get a consistent opinion out of christians of different denominations. They will probably be too busy bickering over what it means based on what passages of the bible they will use as their "proof".
Just on that point, Nightfall, when I mentioned that Sublime's mother's words could have been a form of prayer or ward, I'm fairly sure this was not as a christian would have it, but that gives it no less potency or meaning. The Bible might not condone mediumship, but that does not mean that God, as in the Source of all that is, doesn't. I say this as I am yet to be convinced that the bible is God's first and last word on all matters spiritual.
James.
#42 · Apr 14, 2003, 18:33 · sublime
Thank you for summing up things for me. I definitely see where you are coming from. It is sad that the Bible is translated differently over churches/time. It's also sad to me that the christian religion itself is so segragated. There are so many different outlets of the christian church that all fundamentally are trying to do the exact same thing (teach the word of Christ through the bible etc...) It's sad that they can't all do it together as one "Christian Church". This may be another reason as to why the Bible has changed focus throughout the churches. For example, the catholics emphasis on the Virgin Mother is not found in many other christian churches. By the way are Catholics considered Christians anyways?
To the point about my mother, she does not practice any demonic sort of religion or whatever. From what I know, she has been a Christian all her life (Attends the Methodist Church). Now, I also believe that my mother is a VERY spiritual person. The reason I say this is because she is EXTREMELY emotional. Like for instance, a 30 second commercial that has a baby in it may make her cry. I guess it doesnt help that she is Manic Depressive but regardless, things seem to touch her deeply as they do with me as well. Music has been a wonderful example of this as well. She plays the flute by ear and can hardly read music. She will close her eyes and become emersed in the music that she plays. For me, it's more listening to music than performance. I listen to many kinds of music. I find that certain songs/groups send a major chill down my spine... (see one of my old posts when someone posted a thread about music and energy) Anyways, I almost feel spritually connected to certain songs and/or lyrics. It's almost a feeling I can't describe.
The reason I'm telling you all of this is because I really feel that instead of using religious terms and ideals to explain what may have happened to my mom, maybe use spiritual terms. Religion itself is so fuzzy in nature yet with things like out of body experiences, we are now able to have hands on experience with what I believe is the spirit. Personally, I believe in God and Christ as the savior but not everyone does. I have adapted buddhist philosophies as well. I have come to the conclusion that it is completely impossible for someone to say "These are my beliefs, this is what is right, if you dont follow this you are wrong and will go to a bad bad place" Culturally that just wouldnt work out. Spiritually it wouldnt either. We as human beings are touched spiritually in many different ways. We know so little about the human spirit and what some "superior being" may have in store for us. Since my mom spoke in tongues randomly while giving birth to two children on two seperate occassions, I'd really like to think that this wasn't some sort of a message so much as maybe proof that the sprit inside her exists and that spirit may hold the knowledge that it takes to live in other realms (ie... speaking various languages). So basically, I think it was possibly her spirit that spoke through her? Who knows? I think I've confused myself. Bah
#43 · Apr 15, 2003, 09:31 · Nightfall
So I will email you about them. =)
Sublime, while there are many different denominations, there is only one true church. The reason that catholics are considered christian is because they preach the same exact gospel that every denomination preaches. As agustine once said "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity".
In essentials there is only one christian church. In non-essentials there are many denominations. And in all churches there seems to be a lack of charity. Which I find sad.
But regarding the bible, the area of textual criticism is a pretty fascinating one. I could point you to several books which talk about the translation of the bible. The only point I wanted to make is that currently we have 24,000 different manuscripts in greek, aramaic and latin. The greek copies (not translations, but direct copies) are very prevalent. The bible versions that are currently being sold are based on the copies, not translations of translations. One particular example that I really like is the telephone example. We've all played telephone in school where something is whispered and by the time it gets to the end of the line the message is completely and totally changed. With regards to the bible, the same example would be that the original message was spoken, loudly and clearly (the original copies in the original languages) and then every third person could then repeat back to the originator to make sure they still had it right before passing it on. With that sort of example, errors would be minimized.
The same is true of the bible manuscripts, the copies we have. Critical scholars have estimated that between the 24,000 manuscripts there exists about a 99.99% accuracy.
The problem with the quran is that you need to understand arabic in order to "get" the miracle. Second there exists copies of the quran that do differ from the accepted.
#44 · Apr 15, 2003, 16:06 · James S
The Abbot explains to him that the primary function of this monastery is the reproduction of the bible. They had no press so the reproductions were done by hand.
The Abbot showed the young man around and explained the process, whereby the monks would take last years bibles and copy them word for word, as last years copy had not yet faded at all.
The young man questioned the Abbot on this point "Father, if we are reproducing only last years copy, isn't there a chance someone might make a mistake, and that mistake gets copied? Are we not able to use the original texts?"
"Oh no," the Abbot says, "the originals are far to valuable and delicate, and are kept locked up down in the cellars. Don't worry, our order is highly skilled at reproducing the texts accurately."
A few days later the young man is looking all around for the Abbot, and finally finds him down in the cellars moaning and banging his head against the wall.
"Whats the matter Father?" the man asks.
The Abbot replies "I thought about what you said the other day, so I came down here to compare our recent copies to the originals."
"And?"
"The word is CELEBRATE!"
[
]
James.