I
inJESUS
Guest
great point Angelos.
yea the black stone was previously white but turned black because of sins and Allah knows best.
- Status
yea the black stone was previously white but turned black because of sins and Allah knows best.
A
Angelos
Guest
A
Americanrevert
Guest
Hello, wow this thread went to the second page already lol…but I found it 
Matt, I must say that coming from where I came from, I felt and acted the same very way, but then my eyes saw what was actually in the Bible.
Take a look at what the RSV “Revised Standard Version” Bible said about the mistakes found in the King James Bible.
The REvised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Version published in 1901 which was the revision of the King James Version which was published in 1601.
The First English Version of the scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met with bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the scripture and his new testaments were ordered to be burned as “untrue translations”. He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies and in October 1536 was publicly executed and burned at the stake.
Yet Tyndale’s work became the foundation of subsequent English versions notably those of Coverdale1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers) 1537; The Great Bible 1539; The Geneva Bible 1560; and the Bishops’ Bible 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic Scholars, was published at Rheims.
The Translators who made the King James Version, took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.
The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use, but in the end it prevailed and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the “Authorized Version” of the English speaking peoples.
The King James Version has been with good reason been termed, “the noblest monument of English prose”. Its revisors in 1881 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression…the music of its cadences, and its felicities of its rhythm.” It entered as no other book has into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe it to an incalculable debt.
***Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the Middle of the 19th century the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient upon those which the King James Version was based, made it manifest, that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation. *** The task was undertaken by the authority of the Church of England in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying preferences of the American Scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.
Because of the unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decade between 1881-1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the international council of Religious Education and thus passed into ownership of the Churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in the council through their boards of education and publication.
*The council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version *etc. etc. etc. …
ok, now it is also said that it is backed by 50 cooperating denominations. If you want Christian Theologians, there are those like,
Benedict M. Ashley, O.P., Dr Thomas Strouse is Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary(you should read his article in the Burning Bush Journal febc.edu.sg/burningbush.htm) A CRITIQUE OF GOD’S WORD IN OUR HANDS: THE BIBLE PRESERVED FOR US febc.edu.sg/VPP2.htm , Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology University of Witwatersrand), Dr. Ken Collins, you also have asa3.org/ASA/aboutASA.html, Ernst Troeltsch, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and plus that one lade prophetess she calls herself…Mrs. Ellen G. White, a “prophetess” of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the “Holy Bible.” (should read her stuff lol).
americanrevert…So, I am not just saying it through lack of experience am I
Matt, I must say that coming from where I came from, I felt and acted the same very way, but then my eyes saw what was actually in the Bible.
Take a look at what the RSV “Revised Standard Version” Bible said about the mistakes found in the King James Bible.
The REvised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Version published in 1901 which was the revision of the King James Version which was published in 1601.
The First English Version of the scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met with bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the scripture and his new testaments were ordered to be burned as “untrue translations”. He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies and in October 1536 was publicly executed and burned at the stake.
Yet Tyndale’s work became the foundation of subsequent English versions notably those of Coverdale1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers) 1537; The Great Bible 1539; The Geneva Bible 1560; and the Bishops’ Bible 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic Scholars, was published at Rheims.
The Translators who made the King James Version, took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.
The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use, but in the end it prevailed and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the “Authorized Version” of the English speaking peoples.
The King James Version has been with good reason been termed, “the noblest monument of English prose”. Its revisors in 1881 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression…the music of its cadences, and its felicities of its rhythm.” It entered as no other book has into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe it to an incalculable debt.
***Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the Middle of the 19th century the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient upon those which the King James Version was based, made it manifest, that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation. *** The task was undertaken by the authority of the Church of England in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying preferences of the American Scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.
Because of the unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decade between 1881-1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the international council of Religious Education and thus passed into ownership of the Churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in the council through their boards of education and publication.
*The council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version *etc. etc. etc. …
ok, now it is also said that it is backed by 50 cooperating denominations. If you want Christian Theologians, there are those like,
Benedict M. Ashley, O.P., Dr Thomas Strouse is Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary(you should read his article in the Burning Bush Journal febc.edu.sg/burningbush.htm) A CRITIQUE OF GOD’S WORD IN OUR HANDS: THE BIBLE PRESERVED FOR US febc.edu.sg/VPP2.htm , Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology University of Witwatersrand), Dr. Ken Collins, you also have asa3.org/ASA/aboutASA.html, Ernst Troeltsch, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and plus that one lade prophetess she calls herself…Mrs. Ellen G. White, a “prophetess” of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the “Holy Bible.” (should read her stuff lol).
americanrevert…So, I am not just saying it through lack of experience am I
M
mattkubes
Guest
You won’t find any argument here - the English KJV of the Bible has errors in it. But that doesn’t mean that scripture has errors in it! A translation made in the middle ages gas no bearing in the inerrant nature of the scriptures. Or were to trying to make a broader point?
Just like there can be bad translations of the Quran (I think you yourself said that you prefer the Noble Quran), there can be bad translations of the Bible. That says nothing about the nature of the scriptures themselves.
In any case, add my name to the list of people who don’t support the KJV…
Oh and Ellen White…she’s something isn’t she? She claims her own writings to be inspired. In other words, the woman is a nutcase
Just like there can be bad translations of the Quran (I think you yourself said that you prefer the Noble Quran), there can be bad translations of the Bible. That says nothing about the nature of the scriptures themselves.
In any case, add my name to the list of people who don’t support the KJV…
Oh and Ellen White…she’s something isn’t she? She claims her own writings to be inspired. In other words, the woman is a nutcase
A
Angelos
Guest
As usual, the “revert” is not being honest by going off topic and evading Christian rebuttals.Hello, wow this thread went to the second page already lol…but I found it
Matt, I must say that coming from where I came from, I felt and acted the same very way, but then my eyes saw what was actually in the Bible.
Take a look at what the RSV “Revised Standard Version” Bible said about the mistakes found in the King James Bible.
The REvised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Version published in 1901 which was the revision of the King James Version which was published in 1601.
The First English Version of the scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met with bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the scripture and his new testaments were ordered to be burned as “untrue translations”. He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies and in October 1536 was publicly executed and burned at the stake.
Yet Tyndale’s work became the foundation of subsequent English versions notably those of Coverdale1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers) 1537; The Great Bible 1539; The Geneva Bible 1560; and the Bishops’ Bible 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic Scholars, was published at Rheims.
The Translators who made the King James Version, took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.
The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use, but in the end it prevailed and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the “Authorized Version” of the English speaking peoples.
The King James Version has been with good reason been termed, “the noblest monument of English prose”. Its revisors in 1881 expressed admiration for “its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression…the music of its cadences, and its felicities of its rhythm.” It entered as no other book has into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe it to an incalculable debt.
***Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the Middle of the 19th century the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient upon those which the King James Version was based, made it manifest, that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation. *** The task was undertaken by the authority of the Church of England in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying preferences of the American Scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.
Because of the unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decade between 1881-1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the international council of Religious Education and thus passed into ownership of the Churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in the council through their boards of education and publication.
*The council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version *etc. etc. etc. …
ok, now it is also said that it is backed by 50 cooperating denominations. If you want Christian Theologians, there are those like,
Benedict M. Ashley, O.P., Dr Thomas Strouse is Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary(you should read his article in the Burning Bush Journal febc.edu.sg/burningbush.htm) A CRITIQUE OF GOD’S WORD IN OUR HANDS: THE BIBLE PRESERVED FOR US febc.edu.sg/VPP2.htm , Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology University of Witwatersrand), Dr. Ken Collins, you also have asa3.org/ASA/aboutASA.html, Ernst Troeltsch, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and plus that one lade prophetess she calls herself…Mrs. Ellen G. White, a “prophetess” of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the “Holy Bible.” (should read her stuff lol).
americanrevert…So, I am not just saying it through lack of experience am I
On another thread Muslim woman claims that the black stone functions to mark the starting and ending point of tawaaf.
I guess we should bring a similar black stone here so as to prevent Muslims from digression.
M
mattkubes
Guest
I’d really like to hear a response on this - is this the black stone that is in the Kabba? The one that is kissed, or at least pointed towards on each walk around the…circle?
A
Angelos
Guest
I think there is no stone in the Kaaba. The black stone is in a corner on the outer wall of the building.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I think you got the ministry of reconciliation mixed up with your past protestant belief about the bible?
I take it you have a low image of humanity. God created man in his image.
God took on flesh. Because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word became flesh.
Now if you can grasp this mystery of God, then maybe you can understand the mystery of reconciliation.
Do you believe God can forgive sins? Do you believe that God took on flesh? Do you believe that God can create something from nothing? Do you believe that God can live in us? Do you believe God can commision man? Do you believe God can make water come out of a Rock through Moses? Do you believe that God can work miracles through a man? Do you believe God can speak to people from a man (prophet)? IF you answer yes to all these, then why do you find it difficult for God To forgive confessed sins through his ordained priests who are in Jesus Christ?
IF you dont believe God can do all things, then showing you in the bible where God gives the first apostles the authority to forgive sins can help you understand this great mystery especially the best of all baptise which is the way into the kingdom of God that removes all sins including original sin through a Priest. This is a sacrament, a visible sign instituted by God to part grace to the believer. Are you a believer? Do you want God’s grace and forgiving mercy for your sins? Then God says to repent and be baptised and all your sins will be washed away. Tell me do you go directly to God for baptism, or do you go to a man of the cloth? What is the difference between baptism of forgivness of sins by a man of the cloth, and confessing ones sins to a man of the cloth?
The ministery of reconciliation is for the believer not the non believer. You see, when a baptised person falls into sin, God has instituted the sacrament of reconciliation for all believers to come back home to him through his mercy and forgivness. Just as Moses sacrificed and made atonement for the sins of the people for God to forgive them their sins. Jesus Sacrifice makes it better for us to repent and confess our sins to one another.
Peace
A
abucs
Guest
"Confessional, what gives man the right to forgive for God? "
Not what, but who - God, during the most important and merciful time on earth - his incarnation into creation.
Not what, but who - God, during the most important and merciful time on earth - his incarnation into creation.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Very well stated, Gabriel.
N
notsmart
Guest
“To be honest, to confess, doesn’t necessarily mean to forgive. In all sincerity, a Muslim knows that Only Allah has the power of forgiveness (as far as sins go to confess). Yes, mankind may make mistakes to or upon another person, and yes, forgiveness from them Personally is required and/or actually mandatory.”
I think absoultion is never a certianty in confession as a Catholic, but I am not one, so you may have to check that one out…
So, since we agree forgiveness is only through God,
Lets move on to the more interesting part.
Can you elaborate?
Lets say I am muslim. I commit a horrible sin upon my neighbor.
I confess this to say who now?
I think absoultion is never a certianty in confession as a Catholic, but I am not one, so you may have to check that one out…
So, since we agree forgiveness is only through God,
Lets move on to the more interesting part.
Can you elaborate?
Lets say I am muslim. I commit a horrible sin upon my neighbor.
I confess this to say who now?
M
mattkubes
Guest
Just to answer your question, we can be certain. As long as we have contrition, either perfect (sorrow for offending God) or imperfect (fear of Hell), we’re OK on that end.
Obviously we can’t consciously hide any mortal sins, and we have to have a firm purpose of amendment…but those seem more like common sense. Other than that, we’re good to go
N
notsmart
Guest
Abortion?Just to answer your question, we can be certain. As long as we have contrition, either perfect (sorrow for offending God) or imperfect (fear of Hell), we’re OK on that end.
Obviously we can’t consciously hide any mortal sins, and we have to have a firm purpose of amendment…but those seem more like common sense. Other than that, we’re good to go
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Man cannot forgive sins. But Jesus Christ can work through men to forgive sins. For Jesus Christ said to his Apostles. “Received the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sin you have forgiven, they are forgiven, whosoever sin you retain, they are retain.”
M
mattkubes
Guest
As long as those conditions are met, yes. I imagine that anyone who brings this up in the confessional feels an immense amount of sorrow in the first place.
N
notsmart
Guest
I need some citations.
The ones I have must be bad.
I thought the Church was tough on this.
M
mattkubes
Guest
1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.*
I need some citations.
The ones I have must be bad.
I thought the Church was tough on this.
Abortion is one of those sins that incurs an automatic excommunication (latae sententiae). The specific reference to abortion is paragraph 2272.
But in the US and Canada (and I’m sure in many other places in the world), the Bishops have given their priests the authority to lift this excommunication in the Sacrament of Confession - this role of the Bishop was noted in paragraph 1463.
By no means is the Church not tough on a sin like this - denial of the sacraments is huge. But like any grave sin, the penalty for this going unconfessed is more than anything we can imagine in this life - that’s why the Church allows us to reconcile ourselves with God in such a beautiful way.
A
Americanrevert
Guest
Hello,
americanrevert
Do you not agree that Allah sent messengers(peace and prayers be upon them all), into this world to guide us through God’s Messages? Yes, to judge according to HIS MESSAGE…one cannot judge and say this is how it is supposed to be in Islam…major crimes, have major punishments. Situations differ in many major sins and the punishments as well. But to have a sense of fairness, one must be knowledgeable in these areas or expertise in knowing what the Laws and Decrees/Ordainments are for such things. Forgiveness is there,* but one is and MUST BE FAIR and one cannot override what Allah has said must be done. Man has not that right.*
americanrevert
N
notsmart
Guest
I think the muslims have ignored my question-
?
?
A
Americanrevert
Guest
**Hello notsmart…which was lol? I read so many threads…can you ask again thanks
americanrevert**
americanrevert**
- Status