re: Jimmy Carter was NOT a Christian

frick that Democrat peanut farmer.

let's look at LOT. he was the mayor of sodom. offered up his 2 virgin daughters to the perverts at his door. yet he was a "saved" man.

quote:

---

And as Christian’s our job isn’t to judge as he will have to answer for his sins.

---

Citizens Judged Carter when he ran against Reagan. Liberal Press has tried to reinvent the A hole but folks who lived through his idiocy, just like Biden, know the real Jimmy Carter.

We don't "Judge" who is going to Heaven but we have informed opinions of their worth on earth.
Jimmy gets an F, in my opinion.

He's dead...

/Thread

quote:

---

He was not a good man.

---

No one is righteous, no not one.

Without the imputed righteousness and propitiating work of the only righteous man, he is just as bad as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Osama (et al.).

And, while obedience doesn’t cause salvation the converse is always true.

Sorry, I’m reading Jonathan Edwards so that was a longwinded way of saying +1.

quote:

---

And as Christian’s our job isn’t to judge

---

Don't judge me for judging.

quote:

---

John 7:24
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

---

quote:

---

mistersnagalotapus

---

Who are you to judge another?

quote:

---

At least 75 books are left out of the original Bible.

---

A whole lot more books were left out than that. What makes you think that anything written back then that mentioned any of the historical figures involved should have been included?

Here's the problem with that narrative: Paul quotes Luke in his letters and makes it clear that Luke's gospel is considered scripture. He also makes it VERY clear that the gospel narrative is well established by that point. All of the Gnostic Gospels, et al, clearly contradict the theology of what we know Paul and Peter considered correct.

So why would they be included in the canon?

quote:

---

One of the reasons is because over the years the translation changed and they are no longer canon.

---

I would need a link to know exactly what you are talking about here, but if you mean what I think you mean, they almost certainly weren't considered scripture from the beginning. Therefore they likely weren't subjected to the same copying procedures. I think you have it backwards. They weren't left out because their translation changed, their translation changed because they were left out.

Even if I am wrong about that, however, that only proves the point. It was discovered that the text was not faithfully preserved, so they were abandoned. Using that logic, the stuff that wasn't abandoned is stuff whose translations did not change.

quote:

---

Luke and John spoke Koine Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic, so their books are already a translation.

---

Jesus spoke at a minimum Aramaic and Hebrew (otherwise there would be no way for Him to have read the scrolls at the Jewish Temples as He is depicted as doing), and it also stands to reason that He would have spoken Koine Greek as well since he was a tradesman and that was the language of trade at the time.

However, again, even if that is wrong, Luke has Matthew and Mark to compare to. If there was a significant problem with the "translation" in this case, we would know.

quote:

---

Newer versions and translations are no longer the same. Even in the same language a sentences could mean something different a 100 years later.

---

Categorical error. The accuracy of the manuscript is one thing. The correct interpretation of the manuscript based on correct knowledge of how the words were used and cultural references, etc. is another. Again, translation aren't made from previous translations. They are made from the oldest source material available.

So sure, scholars are still translating based on the best historical evidence, and that evidence changes and grows as we learn more. But again, this is not the "problem" deniers try to act like it is.

For example, Bart Ehrman famously claimed that there are more "errors in the New Testament than words." Of course that statement was designed to depict a completely unreliable document (which he doesn't even hold to himself).

The following is a long video that I don't expect anyone to watch all of, but there is a section during which the scholar speaker illustrates how specious Ehrman's claim is by demonstrating how many ways there are in ancient Greek of writing the phrase "John loves Mary." Right around the 1 hour mark.

YouTube

Keep in mind that in none of the variations does the phrase "John loves Mary" change at all. It doesn't become "Mary is loved by John," or "John feels love for Mary," or anything except "John loves Mary."

He demonstrates that there are over 1200 ways to say this same thing in Greek, and none of them change the meaning at all.

He also says that less than 1/5th of 1% of the NT textural variants actually alter the meaning of the text.

It's a red herring.

He was also an election denier, and we all know that's worse than anything. Even all the terrorists attacks combined.