Just supposing...........

[Shaker]

No. I've seen the TV programmes that Dawkins has made.

What "demand"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I've seen the TV programmes that Dawkins has made.

What "demand"?

In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.

Vlad waits for wheedling 'well what the Doctor really meant'' from Shaker.

[Shaker]

No. I've seen the TV programmes that Dawkins has made.

What "demand"?

In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.

Even if that were true, which is yet to be demonstrated, that sounds like a question (albeit an illegitimate one, if true) rather than a demand. Hence your use of the word "quizzes."

Vlad waits for wheedling 'well what the Doctor really meant'' from Shaker.

Vlad ought to be waiting for "Evidence?" from Shaker.

[Shaker]

No, I didn't think so.

[Sassy]

Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.

Sass, note that I said John's Gospel.  That is different from the 3 letters of John.

Are you saying that the three letters of John are not on equal standing with the gospel of John?
Some of my posts actually contained quotes from johns gospel. Such as Jesus saying:-

 King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

It still amounts to the same thing... Jesus spoke about God and himself being two persons.

[Sassy]

King James Bible

Sass, why the insistence on the King James Bible?  As we know now, it is a flawed translation, despite its towering language.

The Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT.
I find it odd when they themselves translated the books that you think it is flawed.
The OT is not flawed in definition as God himself through Jeremiah taught.

Jeremiah 31:31-34King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The LORD, is the person I believe taught me and told me to use the KJV, for definition purposes.

James gave especial instructions that it should reflect the episcopal structure and the ecclesiology of the Church of England of the time - and hence the nature of monarchy that he enjoyed.  As a result, there are elements that don't properly match the original languages of the Bible, there are elements that rely for understanding on the early-17th century meanings of words - many of which meanings have changed over the centuries - and also reflect an outdated understanding of what Greek and Hebrew that the authors of the AV had access to.

It matters not what instructions man gives. God teaches his own people himself. Just as he has always done. Spirit and Truth.

As you know, it was written in order to provide the Bible in the (English) vernacular; 20th and 21st century British English vernacular (let alone that of American English) has moved on and the current crop of translations are simply providing for you and I what James wanted to provide for the people of his time 400 years ago.

The bible is like milk for those not yet taught by God. You see when you have the Spirit then truth is within you.
John 16:13King James Version (KJV)

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The NT did not exist with the disciples and the first believers. In fact it was the OT that was given as scriptures and which the Bereans checked the Scriptures to see if what they were told by Paul, was true.
If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT.
The Lord just brought to my mind psalm 12.

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The Lords words are preserved...

[Sassy]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.

And yours are?

Read the bible and stop wasting time asking silly questions...

[Sassy]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

They don't believe in anything to have one....

[Leonard James]

What sects and cults does atheism have?

They don't believe in anything to have one....

Says the leader of the smallest Christian cult in the world. 

[Hope]

The Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT.
I find it odd when they themselves translated the books that you think it is flawed.

Sass, the KJV was NOT translated by Jews.  It was translated by, no doubt perfectly worthy, Church of England clergy and scholars in the early 17th century under strict instructions from the monarch to reflect the ecclesiology and episcopal structure of the Church of England of the time.  OK, in this, it was probably trying to counter some of the Roman Catholic ideas that can be found in Catholic translations, but James also wanted it to reflect the role of the monarchy as he saw it.

As for the "Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT", its the first time I've heard that suggestion.  Do you have any evidence for it?  By the way, what do you mean by 'definition' in this comment?

The OT is not flawed in definition as God himself through Jeremiah taught.

Sorry Sass, but when one comes to discussing the relative merits of English or any other language's translations of the Bible, the passage you quote from Jeremiah is absolutely irrelevant.  The reality of what is said in the passage may well be great news, but it has no relevance to the issue we're discussing.

The LORD, is the person I believe taught me and told me to use the KJV, for definition purposes.

What do you mean by 'for definition purposes'?

It matters not what instructions man gives. God teaches his own people himself. Just as he has always done. Spirit and Truth.

And how do Jesus and others like Paul suggest is a good way to discover what that truth is?  Is reading the Scriptures included in that advice?  If so, then the translation has to be the most accurate that we can get. To believe that a translation reflecting the linguistic norms of 400 years ago is 'the best available' is to dismiss  400 years'-worth of theological scholarship and its related linguistic studies.
 

The bible is like milk for those not yet taught by God. You see when you have the Spirit then truth is within you.

Yet I notice that all your posts make use of Biblical imagery and phraseology.  Clearly it has a very important place in your belief system.

If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT....
The Lords words are preserved...

Are you telling us that you are a Jew, Sass?  If that is the case, why are you even thinking of touching the KJV.     Oughtn't you to be working from the Hebrew texts of the Torah, Tanakh and the other Hebrew scriptures?

[floo]

Sass is Sass and makes it up as she goes along!

[jeremyp]

In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.

I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.

[Alien]

In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.

I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

[jeremyp]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In a way Dawkins found impossible.

[Alien]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In what way? One of their "religious beliefs" is that God is faithful and consistent and therefore the way the universe works is likely to be consistent. I don't see that having a "tendency to ruin the science". How would not putting their religious beliefs aside have had the "tendency to ruin the science"? How would belief in, say, Jesus being the second person of the Trinity have ruined Collins' genome project work?

Do you mean Young Earth Creationists rather than Christians in general?

[jeremyp]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In a way Dawkins found impossible.

Yes, because he doesn't have religious beliefs what with being an atheist. 

[jeremyp]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In what way?

Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles.  Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all.  They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In a way Dawkins found impossible.

Yes, because he doesn't have religious beliefs what with being an atheist.

That then is his stance on religion.

Dawkins was unable to put away God when doing science. Waterstone's is replete with the evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In what way?

Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles.  Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all.  They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.

To paraphrase the priests on the 'Speed' episode of Father Ted.......Are you sure a Mass wasn't of help in anyway?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

In what way?

Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles.  Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all.  They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.

And yet Dawkins couldn't seem to do anything without saying there couldn't be a God.

[jeremyp]

Dawkins was unable to put away God when doing science. Waterstone's is replete with the evidence.

You can't get Dawkins' scientific papers in Waterstones. 

I guarantee you that, if you do get hold of one of his papers, you will find no mention of religion in it at all. 

[jeremyp]

And yet Dawkins couldn't seem to do anything without saying there couldn't be a God.

No. that's just you making up bullshit in that boneheaded way that you do.  I really think you should try applying some thought to some of your posts.

[Hope]

I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.

What makes you think this, jeremy?  I can't think of anyone, Christian or otherwise, who puts aside their belief system when doing work, whatver that work might be.

[Hope]

Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles.  Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all.  They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.

Yet none of those points are evidence that the individuals put aside their belief system when doing science, jeremy.  One doesn't have to refer to one's belief system within a dissertation or scientific paper to hold to that belief system.  It is only those who feel that science and religion are opposites who believe that that is what has to happen.