Does it scare you how some people here can quote the Bible?

Question

And know what scripture, and who wrote it.

Answer 1

no not really

Answer 2

Does it scare you how you unconsciously mimic every piece of indoctrination you have read, heard, or been taught, by men and women with personal secular goals and agendas or that you can actually clearly remember something horrible you have done in your past? It should scare more people than just you, and it does.
Even more scary than all of that is the desire some would have to simply sit around and try to strike a nerve in others while also judging such people and claiming they are the incorrect and immoral ones (in their hearts). I mean, who's trying to hurt who in such a scenario? Having such individuals walking this planet is the most frightening thing of all because they don't even know what they are doing.

Answer 3

why should it scare you? Do you know the lyrics to a song and who wrote it? Do you know part of your favorite book and who wrote it? How much more important would it be to know the words to the book that defines what you believe? How much more important to know why you believe what you believe? Also keep in mind that if someone is answering or asking here, they are on the internet, which opens them up to a plethera of other services that will help them search the Bible for certain verses and information about them.

Answer 4

No, other people memorize songs or quotes. So what's the difference. The thing that scares me is that you think this is a valid question. You obviously didn't consult in the force my little star wars fan.

Answer 5

No, it scares me that so many people think they are quoting the Bible and have it all wrong, and don't know the difference between Torah and New Testament.

Answer 6

No it doesn't scare me. What scares me is the opposite. Those Christians who will disregard Scripture and never even try to learn it, because their "Traditions" are more important.

Answer 7

It was only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available.


John Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible, that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

Answer 8

Hey! It's not my fault my parents made me memorize the whole New Testament and a lot of the old.
They were pretty, uh, extreme in wanting me to learn all about the Bible. I even had to have a one to two hour devotions a day.
But eh, they were missionaries so I can't really blame em'.


--Buddhist.

Answer 9

No, it doesn't scare me. It actually annoys me. These people are clearly wasting time and energy memorising some worthless bit of writing when they could be out doing something that is actually useful.

Answer 10

No. I'm encouraged by the fact they can read!!

What scares me is that they can't spell, use proper grammar, complete a sentence or put a cohesive thought together in a paragraph. No punctuation, no capitalization, etc.

Now, THAT's scary.

Answer 11

No. The Devil knows the bible inside and out.