The problem is vain minds never seek to test themselves. Vain minds seek to test everything else by the thoughts of their own minds. If anything does not align with their minds measurement of what is right then it is rejected. It matters not if the conflicting truth comes from the bible. Vain minds have declared themselves God.
OK. I'm gonna be rude here That's just a
really dumb thing to say. I have no interest in that job description (the hours are endless, the pay is lousy, and quite frankly, I'm not that paranoid nor obsessed to require unconditional love from my friends), nor have I ever decalred myself as some omniscient, omnipotent deity.
Posting
anything in online forums
is an exercise in vanity. If you did not operate from the position that what you had to share
was important or worthwhile, you would
not be here. It's
vanity to believe that
your perspective is
more relevant, or proffers
greater (or penultimate) insight, to the
exclusion of all others.
"
I'm here to share 'THE TRUTH'!" ANY perspectives that contradict/deviate from my understanding of that "truth" are WRONG (and *snif*..."Oh well...", damned).
If you wish to disabuse yourself from any collusions/associations with vanity, I suggest you follow the advice of Jesus, renouncing all earthly possessions and temptations of the flesh, and become a monk or priest. Otherwise, I assure you, your declarations and protestations of suffering the the maladies incumbent/imposed upon "true believers" will fall upon deaf and unsympathetic ears.
"
Blame the messenger"? If you continue to present yourself as the lone (or rare) truthful arbiter of "God's Word", I practically guarantee that you will turn more people
away from your God, than you will ever bring unto His fold of faithful and abiding adherents. Beelzebub would be pleased...
Proverbs 11:29
I posed:
If vanity is self-deceit, and lies separate minds from "the truth", to what or whom should they turn, or trust? Perhaps to someone that already claims (or infers) for themselves to understand "the truth" (and there's certainly no vanity in that position)?
You both ironically and ineptly replied:
Well once again they will not accept the clear Word of God on a matter because they place their own intellect abouve the wisdom Of God. So it matters not a jot to them if a human comes with the truth. Because their mind tells them that anyone who disagrees with what they deem as truth is a fool.
Or maybe - and note the irony in application here - verity is circumspectly observed in that: "Because
your mind tells
you that anyone who disagrees with what
you deem as truth
is a fool".
The numbering system of the bible is just a convienent system to help one locate scriptures. Just as page numbers in any book helps one to guide others to the parts of a book one wishes to talk about. The system does not change the meacing of the words. The bible should be read without much concern with those numbers.
I never suggested that numbering of Scripture should change meaning/interpretation of Scripture itself. But, matters of "convenience" are certainly accommodations of the needs of
men, not of service to or for the needs of a divine instigator, who initially chose to impart His will and Word most notably
absent such references.
Duh.
I
understand the "why" of C&V notations, but was His Word in
need of "divine inspiration" in
amending such editorial discretions? Does
perfection require revision or enhancement? Are such changes divinely inspired, or are they wrought at the hands of sinful men? If man was meant to fly of his own volition, would not God have lent him wings? If the Gospels were meant to sustain human editorial discretions/refinements in subservient service to "God's Word", should not they have been written as such from the outset? Does such willingness to accommodate the wanting qualities of man allow for further "divinely inspired" changes to Scripture in the future?
I note that you carefully evaded any provision of specificity in naming a particular translation of Biblical Scripture as being the lone accurate" source of "God's Word"? Of all people, surely wayward and repentant Christians would like to know just
which Biblical accountings of "God's Word" they
should hold fast and dear as "the truth". Won't you at least help these lost souls find the truthful way to "God's Word"? Must I quote from more than a dozen differing translations of the same C&V, simply to earn your candid reply of (specifically)
which translation of "God's Word" that
you deem as "true"? Or is it your understanding and assertion that
all Biblical translations are both 100% accurate and faithfully representative of "God's truthful Word"?
If it is (posited) to be understood that "God's Word"
can be accurately gleaned from
any English Biblical translation, then what purpose do
multiple "interpretations" of the
very same "message" serve in matters of divinely proscribed "truth"? Time to start naming names. Do the NKJV, NASB and/or NIV, all testify to the
exact same "truth" of "God's Word"? If so, how so? If
not, why not? And, if not, which version/translation
should "true believers' both quote and cite as
definitive expositions of "God's Word"?
This is not just a qualitative summary conclusion to be made here. "Good, Better, Best" evaluations ain't good enough. We need
THE "truth".
Let's say that I have six different road maps, outlining differing routes to a specified and desired destination. Three of these maps were published predicated upon the available information of the day, back in the 1970's. One map was published in 1985. One was updated to reflect the changes to infrastructure change and enhancement as of 2005. The last map is an ancient and barely readable document that is accountably almost 2000 years old.
If you're lost, and simply wish to achieve your desired destination, which map would you rely upon? Is there any element of ancient historical record that can hope to trump (or accommodate) the veritably existent changes to our world (or necessitated journeys/travels)? Are we to summarily reject any changes in amending contemporary maps from the originals as being inherently "false"? As lies? As Satanic influence?
All I request is provision of
the one, and most accurate (definitive) roadmap, to the destination of "truth". No two maps are
exactly alike. Either multiple [albeit dissimilar] maps
can ultimately lead to the
same desired destination, or that is pragmatically (and dogmatically)
impossible. All I want to know is, who publishes the road map
you are following to the land of "truth"? Rand McNally? MapQuest? FMCA? MapNation? National Geographic? They
all differ in some subtle to substantial way. Can they
all be correct and accurate, or do they each evince some fundamental flaw in comparison to the map
you wield?
Nobody wants to be lost, so don't be shy. C'mon.
Which version of
what map is the "right" one to follow to "God's Word"?
Well, all true followers of The Messiah Jesus are called by Jesus to go out and give the truth. Some will embrace the truth and accept correction while others will reject truth and mock correction
It's far easier to mock those that
claim to speak on behalf of their Savior as incorruptible prophets of His "truth". Jesus warned of many false prophets that would arise in His wake, and in His name. Your credentials as a qualified corrector seem...lacking.
The Word of God is the true tester of those who claim to be followers of The Messiah Jesus,
Indeed. Please present
your authentication/certification as His endowed/blessed proctor of this test. Perhaps the version/translation of Scripture
you use has an
additional chapter or two that
provides this alluded
test.
" ...I do not think for a moment you actually believe yourself to be confused. From your sarcasm and mockery it is pretty clear that you are a true atheist indeed."
How pleasing to know that not
all sarcasm and sardonics are beyond your rational capacities. It's
not your evident piety that I mock, or even question - it's your manifest manipulations of your own Savior's message that is both sad, and therefore worthy of righteous ridicule.
Yet, I applaud your zealotry, vainglorious pride, and assumptive arrogance in confident assertion and subsequent conclusion that I am a "true atheist". I envy your unfettered insight and certitude in the absence of any established fact or tested hypothesis.
If
you say it's so...it
must be true.