RELIGION....(part 2)

[bonjour]

---

@enlighten yup agree ko sa imong gipangsulti. I believe na ang religion dli kaluwas sa atoa.

@shoeless bitaw usahay ang Ginoo lain lain paagi sa pagtawag sa ato nga balik sa iya

Anyway wonder lang sad ko why ang mga religion daghan kau bawal nga buhaton labi na sa catolico especially jud nang mga charismatic limanka nga ni attend ko ug usa ka charismatic gathering ngon cla nga ang reflexology occult practices. Tinuod ba kaha na Usahay sa ka daghan bawal maglibog nalang ang mga tao unya ang uban magwadan nasad ug salig sa ilang relihiyon.

[Gwynhuever]

@enlighten.. correct ka dyan.. ako maski asa ra man ko simba. adto man gali ko og mga buddhist temple kay mas hilom og mas maka concentrate ka ampo kay wala mga cellfone nga motingog, mga bata nga moiyak .. but i still retain my faith.

parehas ta...kay para nako ang church (the building itself) ...is just that a building....i can worship anywhere ....kay diba ni ingon man "where two or three are gathered in my name...there i am in their midst".....usahay pod makanumdum ko nga "pray in private kay your God who sees you will reward you in private"....so depende lang ....sulod japun ko simbahan panagsa pero i don't feel guilty anymore kon maka miss ko ug sunday mass

[enlighten]

@samokan buddhist ka sis...wla pa nuon ko kasulod budhist temple then dli au ko familiar ilang teaching lahi raba na cla sa hinduism...pro sa protestant well verse au ko sa ilang ways and teaching kay nagdako ko nagskol ko ug protestant despite sa cge hangyo sa ako auntie pabalhinon ug catholic skols mao pagdako nako naglibog na nuon ko sako religion pro karon balilk nako catholic kay mao mana religion sko parents...

@gwyn thanks dli mangud ko gnhan mo judge sa tawo sa ilang ways ug pagpractice sa ilang religion or d lack of a person of a religion coz' sa una sad ignorante mansad ko laman sad au ko magpractice sako faith ug religion...unya mura na noon ta ug self-righteous ana kun cge ta preach sa ato religion nga mao rajud naay mau...

[samokan]

@enlighten, nope dili ko buddhist. but i love going to there temples. hilom man gud og dili samok, den walay mga himatayon

@gwyn, nganhi no, rare kaau na moadto ko og simbahan, ambot di ko ganahan. But wen i go home to cebu and my birth place, never fail to visit sto. nino and birhen sa kota on arrival and departure gyud na

[Gwynhuever]

@enlighten...mao bitaw ni comment jud ko nga nahan ko sa imong post...kay gaan dawaton...mas maayo man gud ingon ana kay ang maminaw makalma so maka dungog sa gisangyaw...kon pina mayng laki ma defensive man ang gi storyahan so mag lalis na nuon...

@samokan....sa diha pa ko sis...sige ko simba kay nindot amo simbahan and ang pari sad cool...gamay lang...crypt chapel lang sa cathedral kay di man mapuno kon sa dako nga simbahan ang misa....nahan ko mo attend kay morag big family mi tanan....

[mannyamador]

The Translation of the KJV Was Not Inspired

It is often claimed by certain religious fanatics that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible (a.k.a. the "Authorized Version") is the
true Word of God, that it is the best of all translations, that it is the ONLY one that shouold be used, and (incredibly) it is absolutely
error-free because the translators were actually inspired by God to make an infallible translation.

The last claim is ridiculous and has no basis in fact. It is easily refuted by the work itself and the words of the translators.

Below are two PROTESTANT proofs refuting the claim that the translators were infallibly Inspired by God during their translation
of ther KJV. There are references to photos, but these cannot be reproduced in this message. Please see the source webpage below for
photos and other examples.

Please note that since this a protestant website, it makes many errors concerning Catholic and Christian doctrine. But it still makes valid
arguments against the KJV-only fanatics.

From: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof

Proof #1: that the translators were NOT inspired in their work of translation:

1. There are over 8000 alternate English renderings from Greek and
Hebrew manuscripts that were identical.

2. The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the
meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and
four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew
makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it
is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR
SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!

3. No one questions the Greek and Hebrew is inspired. But if the
translators were also inspired by the Holy Spirit, in their work of
translating the inspired Hebrew into English, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
GUIDED BY DIVINE INSPIRATION THE CORRECT RENDERING, hence no need
for any alternate readings in the margin.

4. Remember, although we have only shown one example of this first
type of marginal reading, there are over 8000 more we have not
shown!

5. The New American Standard Bible is in the left hand column for
reference.

. . .

Proof #2: that the translators were NOT inspired in their work of translation:

1. Everyone agrees that there are minor variations in the copies of
the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. There errors are typical
of types of errors men make when they copy things and make
absolutely no doctrinal difference. Jesus promised that "scripture
cannot be broken" John 10:36 and Peter said, that the "imperishable
... word of the Lord abides forever" 1 Peter 1:23-25.

2. Now KJV ONLY advocates believe that the translators were directed
by the Holy Spirit to make the correct choice between two
variations in the Greek or Hebrew text.

3. There are a number of marginal readings that indicate alternate
manuscript readings. This is different from two English readings
from identical manuscripts. The fact that the translators placed
into the margin alternate manuscript readings PROVES BEYOND ANY
DOUBT that they WERE NOT GUIDED by the Holy Spirit as to which one
of the two readings were correct.

5. We have included in this collection 13 different places in the
original 1611 edition of the KJV where the translators give
alternate manuscript readings.

[Examples not shown. See http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof]

[Visual C#]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who
nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will
as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Now there is a problem with this statement.. not all religions or beliefs require belief in a higher being. The Taoists for example, don't believe in one god. The Buddhists as well do not believe in a "God".

The second phrase emphasized is also related to the first one: how do they do 'His' will when they don't believe in a God? How would they know that they're doing His will if they don't even know Him in the first place?

The third phrase emphasized also is problematic: what type of conscience? Is it the Catholic definition of conscience? Isn't conscience formed by our experiences in life, our beliefs, our religion?

Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm

The natural conscience of the Christian is known by him to act not alone, but under the enlightenment and the impulse derived from revelation and grace in a strictly supernatural order.

The enlightenment mentioned here, of course, comes from God, which leads us back to my first point.

If we grew up Muslim (or anything else), we will have a conscience that differs vastly from the Catholics, am I right?

[weedmeister2]

The Translation of the KJV Was Not Inspired

So what Bible do you suggest we follow then?

[mannyamador]

Now there is a problem with this statement.. not all religions or beliefs require belief in a higher being. The Taoists for example, don't believe in one god. The Buddhists as well do not believe in a "God".

That's right. Read the statement from the catechism again. It did not say that non-Christians WILL DEFINITELY be saved. it just said that they MAY be saved. In other words, there is a possibility, but that's all.

The second phrase emphasized is also related to the first one: how do they do 'His' will when they don't believe in a God? How would they know that they're doing His will if they don't even know Him in the first place?

See the "second greatest commandment". Following it is still following God's will.

[mannyamador]

So what Bible do you suggest we follow then?

This article gives some good suggestions:

Bible Translation Guide
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bibl...ions_Guide.asp

Some points to remember. Choose a Binle that is...

1. One that you don't think was "Inspired" during translation and is the "one and only" Bible to be read.
2. One that you will actually read, just in case you are turned off by its old, archaic english.
3. One that is complete, with 72 books (not just 66).
4. One with historical notes.

As a Catholic, I would suggest the following versions:

New American Bible
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

Douay-Rheims Bible(kind of difficult English though)
http://www.drbo.org/