Did Cornelius receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized?

[stemelbow]

stem,

You wrote:

In other words, when you're right, you're right, and when you're wrong, you're still right. Convenient.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, if that's what you think it is. I maintain that we simply know that to LDS "Gift of the Holy Ghost" refers specifically, if used traditionally among us, an ordinance performed normally soon after Baptism which invites the Holy Spirit to constantly be with a recipient. We do not know that any of the apostles of the NT era used the same specific terminology to refer to the same ordinance or not. Therefore we simply can't conclude that both can't be right, as you have done. You seem to require that our chosen wording for this specific ordinance must align perfectly with what a particular biblical author has said. I simply question whether we must accept your premise--that our chosen language to refer to a specific ordinance must be consistent with the wording chosen to explain a story from the NT era. We do not have much, it seems, to support your premise or my theoretical possibility. I'm simply saying your conclusion seems hasty.

love,

stem

[Zakuska]

I find it funny that ANY one would argue against the LOHFTGOTHG when Hebrews 6 makes it as plain as day...

Heb 6

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Laying on of hands accompanies the reception of BaptismS (plural)...

1) Baptism in water

2) Baptism by fire

How anyone can argue against the "DOCTRINE of Christ" is beyond me.

[USU78]

I find it funny that ANY one would argue against the LOHFTGOTHG when Hebrews 6 makes it as plain as day...

Heb 6

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Laying on of hands accompanies the reception of BaptismS (plural)...

1) Baptism in water

2) Baptism by fire

How anyone can argue against the "DOCTRINE of Christ" is beyond me.

Would you say that there can be no honest disagreement on this subject?

[Zakuska]

Would you say that there can be no honest disagreement on this subject?

Would you agree or disagree that LOH is a principle Doctrine of Christ?

[USU78]

Would you agree or disagree that LOH is a principle Doctrine of Christ?

I'm foolin' with you, Z. From the OP:

Although honest people can disagree about many things, in this instance there really is no room for doubt that the statement made by Gospel Principles

[TAO]

TAO

You are looking for some BIG answers-

Nah, simply trying to make you think - I've already found the answers - but I take joy in making others think of the answers.

You can get a commentary and study these things. Find one online.

Or access the criticisms of various versions. Such as:

http://en.wikipedia....cism_of_the_RSV

In the New Testament there are four big additions or passages of the highest controversy:

John 4 the stoning of the Adulteress,

1 John 5:7 known as the Comma Johanneum,

Matthew 6:13 the ending of the Lords prayer,

And the Snakes ditty that Ends the Gospel of Mark

To study about what is translated one way or another, can also buy a lexicon to look up original Greek and Hebrew words too.

Nah, your not getting what I am saying. I am saying HOW do you know where the Bible has or hasn't been edited in the past, and HOW do you know by how much. For all we know - the Bible could have been completely 100% altered from the beginning, could it not?

What makes a book in which we don't know the trust-ability of, a reliable source? (I know the answer, I'm trying to get you to think of it)

The sub- themes of creation, the fall, life, death, the nature of God, adoption, sonship, sacrafice, repentance, faith, sanctification and on and on all support one Grand Theme of Redemption.

The Bible sets the stage by telling us that there is Creator God, who made man in Eden, Then the human problem is defined

[selek]

Friends, these responses are not taking the text of Acts 10 seriously.

On the contrary, we take the Scriptures ver seriously. It is YOU (and your false dichotomies) that we take lightly.

[rongo]

The problem, rongo, is that Joseph Smith and the LDS Church ever since have explicitly denied that Cornelius was an exception or deviation from the established pattern. From Joseph Smith in 1842 to the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles, the LDS Church has taught that Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. My simple point: they are wrong.

Uh, Rob, my simple point is: you are wrong. You might want to re-read the Journal of Discourses quotes I gave you. They specifically deal with the Cornelius incident as "an exception or deviation from the established pattern." That was the whole point in posting them.

None of your lengthy excerpts address the point I have raised. None.

Because you say so? I think it is you who refuses to deal with what they said. For example, the background with Cornelius as a Gentile and the deep-seated adherence to tradition and Christ's command during His ministry that needed to be overcome. You continue to doggedly plunk away on your one piano key of "there-can-be-one-and-only-one-useand-meaning-of-phrases-and-words-in-the-New-Testament-worlds-without-end," but the effect of the actual influence of the Holy Ghost on thoughtful and interested people has made your inerrancy/infallibility/sufficiency position a declining one. There are reasons why the Mormon explanation of things is appealing to people, and why we continue to gain converts despite the desperate counter-measures of the SBC, or whatever anti-Mormon ministry you have currently bounced to.

The text does not say, but of course there is no reason to think that Cornelius or anyone else would have refused to be baptized. Your question seems to present what is called a hypothesis contrary to fact argument (as do the rest of your questions). The text doesn't say what would have happened if Cornelius had not gotten baptized. What it does tell us is that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.

You're arguing with a straw man, here. The quotes I posted specifically agree that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Ghost as modern Mormons understand it before baptism (they ascribe this to an exceptional contingency, outside of "the usual way" (quote #1) ). So, I agree that "it does tell us is that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized." While "the text doesn't say what would have happened if Cornelius had not gotten baptized," sidestepping the question and claiming sanctuary on grounds of "since-the-Bible-doesn't-go-there-we-don't-need-to-go-there-everything-God-intended-to-give-us-is-God-breathed-in-the-text-already-and-anything-else-is-unnecessary" is part of the reason why Mormonism continues to do well among former inerrantists. Your predictable and continuing making a final stand with The Bible Text

[Vance]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, if that's what you think it is. I maintain that we simply know that to LDS "Gift of the Holy Ghost" refers specifically, if used traditionally among us, an ordinance performed normally soon after Baptism which invites the Holy Spirit to constantly be with a recipient. We do not know that any of the apostles of the NT era used the same specific terminology to refer to the same ordinance or not. Therefore we simply can't conclude that both can't be right, as you have done. You seem to require that our chosen wording for this specific ordinance must align perfectly with what a particular biblical author English translators has have said. I simply question whether we must accept your premise--that our chosen language to refer to a specific ordinance must be consistent with the wording chosen to explain a story from the NT era. We do not have much, it seems, to support your premise or my theoretical possibility. I'm simply saying your conclusion seems hasty.

love,

stem

If I may, just a few minor adjustments.

[cdowis]

A clarifying question:

Can a nonChristian receive the influence of the Holy Spirit? For example, was Ghandi ever influenced by the Holy Spirit. Remember that he never joined the Christian church.

The LDS position is that he could have very well have received inspiration from that source, in the same way that Cornelius was influenced. In the latter case, Cornelius then received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, received the permanent gift through an ordinance performed even as the ordinance of baptism by water.

One is the temporary influence of the Holy Spirit (which is a gift from God), while the Gift of the Holy Ghost is an ordinance administered through the priesthood.

In the case of Ghandhi, he did not receive that ordinance.

[zerinus]

A clarifying question: . . .

When you are done editing that post, let us know so we can reply!

P.S. It has become utterly confusing now!

[cdowis]

I'm finished.

When I post something, you need to wait at least ten minutes for the paint to dry.

[Hick Preacher]

TAO in quotes

Nah, simply trying to make you think - I've already found the answers - but I take joy in making others think of the answers.

Yes, TAO what you say stimulates thinking. This is a choice I make. I could just ignore anything that you write that I do not like, but I like to read what you have to say.

Nah, your not getting what I am saying. I am saying HOW do you know where the Bible has or hasn't been edited in the past, and HOW do you know by how much. For all we know - the Bible could have been completely 100% altered from the beginning, could it not?

What makes a book in which we don't know the trust-ability of, a reliable source? (I know the answer, I'm trying to get you to think of it)

When copies of various Bible books have been collected from different corners of the old world, and verses of that Book read the same from one copy to another it is a significant find. This is significant because it explicitly shows that those intact verses read as the original. These diverse copies are copies of some pre-existing text that is close to the original, which when recopied those verses have NOT been altered, but were copied accurately.

We can also know that the Bible was not altered drastically the beginning because the books in the Bible (NT) were not complied into one defined collection until the third century A.D.. Because of the diversity of the Christians during these early stages of development, we know that it is not possible for some central coordinated effort to modify the Bible. By the time of the organization of such a body that could have done so, New Testament books were widely distributed, so everyone could see how the originals read.

From a personal stand point, I study and pray about what I read. Then in obedience I live out Biblical standards, and from my obedience I receive blessings from the Holy Spirit of God. Some of these blessings include personal revelation, good fortune, and even challenges that help me grow day by day as a Christian.

If the history of a sacred book is not known, it can be compared to the other books as to what it teaches, and what we have been taught. And also we can pray about it too. Praying about something and receiving an answer from the Spirit. I have done this with the Book of Mormon, and through trials and tests with this Book my answer from the Spirit is that the Book of Mormon is monotheistic and teaches about a God that has a pluralistic nature.

Well then what do you make of this statement?

Titus 1

2 In ahope of beternal life, which God, that cannot clie, dpromised before the world began; UAdd a Note

3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

God will not lie to you when He tells you something.

Indeed - I think redemption is even a sub-theme of something else. Redemption is a part of it, true - it is a great part of God's plan - but it is not all of it. Indeed, I would not even classify the theme of the Bible as redemption - I would say the theme is God's Plan of Happiness. Redemption is a part of it - a base of it - one thing which one must look at before understanding the whole. I would say Redemption is the most important column holding up God's Plan save for sacrifice - I think sacrifice to be a more important and Godly column of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ's plan.

I see, you and I are not too far off with this idea of the main part of God's Plan,considering the difficulties of an inner-faith discussion.

Well then, I say, there is no such thing as a full canon of God - God is not limited to the weakness of a canon. He may use books to help, but no book is full of the truth of him.

Yes I would agree. But also when we have a collection of Books and we see a trend or teachings, and we see patterns and principles, we can use that as a standard to judge other writing that claim to be from God, and the meaning of certain impressions we get to determine if that impression is a revelation from God, or from some other source.

However, is not personal revelation more pure and perfect than the written word? Is it not of more quality and help then the written word? For though the written word may be changed, the Spirit of God is one and the same; always.

NO man may say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor 12:3

I disagree. God's heavenly plan is the operating system of the PC. The GUI (graphical user interface) is controlled by the Holy Ghost, using a method in God's Heavenly Plan. Now, on the side, there is an abbreviated version of what appears on the GUI - but it is in text - not in images. It doesn't portray everything the GUI does. On the other hand, it is much easier to reference than the GUI (it's more strenuous to store videos than text). That is the written word aka the scriptures. A part, but not the complete vision of the plan of God. It is good to reference, but one should pay even more attention to the GUI, which can show in much greater depth the meaning behind the saved text.

Hmmm... I would say...

Mormons pay alot of attention to the GUI, and as of such, must pay less attention to the saved text.

Others pay attention to the saved text, but miss out on the fullness of the GUI.

I dunno 'bout you, but I'd rather look at a GUI than text. Pictures are worth a thousand words.

Sounds like you are describing the Preparatory Gospel as opposed to the Fulness of the Gospel

Sorry dude, as said, I wasn't really wanting the answers, I was wanting you to think about the answers. From thinking comes great ideas.

Thinking to the second party is a hidden activity. Behaviors due to thinking can be seen and from those actions it is inferred what thinking is behind the behaviors.

Typing messages on an Internet Board and reading messages from others is a difficult means of communication. Still the interchange can stimulate thinking. So thanks for the message, I am thinking. You must be thinking to in order to read and respond to what I have written.

[Vance]

I got an email regarding this topic which was very thought provoking. It is going to take me some time to digest its contents. It has made me wonder. Last time we wandered into RB-land. RB was very quick to run to the Greek when he thought it would give him an advantage. This time Rob has studiously stayed with the English. And so I wonder, why?

In Acts 2:28 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea tou agiou pneumatos".

Although translated the same in English, they are different in Greek. The difference is in the form of "gift" it is. So here we have a situation that the "inerrant" meanings aren't being translated correctly. The English reader is left with the mis-impression that these two different forms of gift are the same form of gift. Rob is using this mis-impression to fabricate an unwarranted attack (no surprise there).

Just some food for thought.

[Hick Preacher]

I got an email regarding this topic which was very thought provoking. It is going to take me some time to digest its contents. It has made me wonder. Last time we wandered into RB-land. RB was very quick to run to the Greek when he thought it would give him an advantage. This time Rob has studiously stayed with the English. And so I wonder, why?

In Acts 2:28 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea tou agiou pneumatos".

Although translated the same in English, they are different in Greek. The difference is in the form of "gift" it is. So here we have a situation that the "inerrant" meanings aren't being translated correctly. The English reader is left with the mis-impression that these two different forms of gift are the same form of gift. Rob is using this mis-impression to fabricate an unwarranted attack (no surprise there).

Just some food for thought.

Acts 2-

"thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

May take on this from the Greek-

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea

This denotes different deliveries of the 'gift'--Acts 2 denotes a sacred formalized giving of a gift to an individual, (Acts 2) and the other(Acts 10) denotes being granted a gift in an informal way.

[Vance]

Acts 2-

"thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

May take on this from the Greek-

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea

This denotes different deliveries of the 'gift'--Acts 2 denotes a sacred formalized giving of a gift to an individual, (Acts 2) and the other(Acts 10) denotes being granted a gift in an informal way.

Thanks.

They are indeed different then. A difference that is lost in the translation.

[Rob Bowman]

rongo,

Let's start again. You offered the following quotation from Brigham Young:

When he pleases to bless the children of men, he is able to accomplish his purpose. If he is disposed to permit a Nebuchadnezzar to see a finger writing on a wall, it is his privilege to do so. If he is disposed to talk with an Enoch, or to show himself to the brother of Jared, it is his privilege. And if he is disposed to pour out the Holy Ghost upon the house of Cornelius before he embraced the Gospel in the usual way by baptism for the remission of sins, it is his privilege. The principle is, God must be obeyed. And even after Cornelius and his house had received the Holy Ghost, they did not, like some in our day, rise up and say, "We have no need to be baptized." Why did not Cornelius tell Peter that he had received the Holy Ghost, and was as good a Christian as he? But, no; he must send to Joppa for one Simon Peter, who would tell him words whereby he and his household could be saved. What words? To be baptized in water. Peter did not tell them to receive the Holy Ghost, for they had received it.

They had already been endowed with the Holy Ghost, and it was the right and privilege of him who laid down his life to redeem the children of men to bestow that Holy Ghost where and when he pleased. If Cornelius had refused to have been baptized, he never would have received the influence of the Holy Ghost afterwards. He must obey the outward ordinances to secure to himself eternal lives

[Zakuska]

I'm finished.

When I post something, you need to wait at least ten minutes for the paint to dry.

Ditto!

[Vance]

Acts 10, however, says the opposite: that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized:

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Rank amateurs should be cautious about pretending to understand something they don't. In this instance, your ignorance is on full display. The expressions THN DWREAN and hH DWREA are exactly the same words in Greek, "the gift." The only difference is grammatical case spellings: THN DWREA is in the accusative case because it is the direct object, while hH DWREA is in the nominative case because it is the subject. We don't spell "gift" differently when it is the direct object instead of the subject, but Greek must do so (the technical term is inflection).

I got an email regarding this topic which was very thought provoking. It is going to take me some time to digest its contents. It has made me wonder. Last time we wandered into RB-land. RB was very quick to run to the Greek when he thought it would give him an advantage. This time Rob has studiously stayed with the English. And so I wonder, why?

In Acts 2:28 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea tou agiou pneumatos".

Although translated the same in English, they are different in Greek. The difference is in the form of "gift" it is. So here we have a situation that the "inerrant" meanings aren't being translated correctly. The English reader is left with the mis-impression that these two different forms of gift are the same form of gift. Rob is using this mis-impression to fabricate an unwarranted attack (no surprise there).

Just some food for thought.

[TAO]

Yes, TAO what you say stimulates thinking. This is a choice I make. I could just ignore anything that you write that I do not like, but I like to read what you have to say.

Good, I just wanted to make sure - I don't like having people think one thing is happening when I'm really doing another. I didn't want to deceive you into why I was asking questions I already knew.

When copies of various Bible books have been collected from different corners of the old world, and verses of that Book read the same from one copy to another it is a significant find. This is significant because it explicitly shows that those intact verses read as the original. These diverse copies are copies of some pre-existing text that is close to the original, which when recopied those verses have NOT been altered, but were copied accurately.

However, the oldest 'somewhat' Bible-like thing we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are dated about 2 centuries before Christ. The next oldest thing identified is a millenium later - in the 10th Century AD, the Aleppo Codex. However, neither of these is close to the creation date of the original texts. Also, for the DSS, the most commonality they have is 1/4 of the text, and that's for Psalms. Considering it's still too far from when the texts were wrote, it is very easy to see that changes WERE made, and they were quite numerous too.

We can also know that the Bible was not altered drastically the beginning because the books in the Bible (NT) were not complied into one defined collection until the third century A.D.. Because of the diversity of the Christians during these early stages of development, we know that it is not possible for some central coordinated effort to modify the Bible. By the time of the organization of such a body that could have done so, New Testament books were widely distributed, so everyone could see how the originals read.

Alas, the Aleppo Codex in the 10th century AD (7 centuries afterward) leaves plenty of time for changes to occur, does it not?

From a personal stand point, I study and pray about what I read. Then in obedience I live out Biblical standards, and from my obedience I receive blessings from the Holy Spirit of God. Some of these blessings include personal revelation, good fortune, and even challenges that help me grow day by day as a Christian.

If the history of a sacred book is not known, it can be compared to the other books as to what it teaches, and what we have been taught. And also we can pray about it too. Praying about something and receiving an answer from the Spirit. I have done this with the Book of Mormon, and through trials and tests with this Book my answer from the Spirit is that the Book of Mormon is monotheistic and teaches about a God that has a pluralistic nature.

Ok, that's good, I was hoping this would be the conclusion you would reach. The value of books like the Bible, BoM, and others isn't truly in the interpretation of texts - it's in what the spirit tells you. The books are there simply to get you to think, to use the spirit - it's the spirit that actually matters.

God will not lie to you when He tells you something.

I see, you and I are not too far off with this idea of the main part of God's Plan,considering the difficulties of an inner-faith discussion.

One thinks that it may be because one was part of the LDS church at a time XD.

Yes I would agree. But also when we have a collection of Books and we see a trend or teachings, and we see patterns and principles, we can use that as a standard to judge other writing that claim to be from God, and the meaning of certain impressions we get to determine if that impression is a revelation from God, or from some other source.

But my point is - why even judge by other books when we could judge by the spirit instead. Books may mislead us. The spirit will not. I was having a conversation about this verse with Valentinus yesterday.

John 3:8

The ^awind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the ^bSpirit."

It's talking about trusting the spirit - we shouldn't lock the spirit in by forcing it to comply to certain books - we should let it be free - and let us be taken by the wind, wherever it comes and goes. If we put our trust in books, we cannot follow the spirit to the degree we could if we did not.

Sounds like you are describing the Preparatory Gospel as opposed to the Fulness of the Gospel

Yes, I think that may be the case, but the point I was making perhaps was that the books are part of the Preparatory Gospel, whereas the Spirit is of the Fullness of the Gospel.

Thinking to the second party is a hidden activity. Behaviors due to thinking can be seen and from those actions it is inferred what thinking is behind the behaviors.

Typing messages on an Internet Board and reading messages from others is a difficult means of communication. Still the interchange can stimulate thinking. So thanks for the message, I am thinking. You must be thinking to in order to read and respond to what I have written.

Hehe, it has to do with my Autistic mind - I try to predict how one is going to respond to my responses before one does. That's why I enjoy making people think so much. It is more difficult acting in such a way as to cause other people to think on a board, because one lacks body language to read, but I'm glad I've been successful here =).

[Hick Preacher]

Thanks.

They are indeed different then. A difference that is lost in the translation.

Yes, if a person is going to really get into an inquest in to the deeper meanings of certain passages, looking at the old language is useful. But accessible information in the old language exists and has been transmitted to us, so nothing has been lost. Also the structure and context even in English, of the English text is also revealing. You could expect even in English--and even in a paraphrased version that one passage (Acts 2) to indicate the formal religious process would be in a form that would include the idea that getting the Gift would be sacred and specifically a formal Jewish style religious covenant. But in (Acts 10) these gentiles, who did not appear to yet be in a covenant got the same gift. A meeting among the Apostles ensued to determine if these gentiles should be viewed as being included in the covenant.

Overall, it is true, and any informed Evangelical would agree that at person who enters a New Testament Christian Covenant has the right to companionship of the Holy Ghost.

This is a covenant principle promised by Christ

[Vance]

Rank amateurs should be cautious about pretending to understand something they don't. In this instance, your ignorance is on full display.

Resorting to personal attacks are you?

The expressions THN DWREAN and hH DWREA are exactly the same words in Greek, "the gift."

So here you say they are "exactly the same".

The only difference is grammatical case spellings: THN DWREA is in the accusative case because it is the direct object, while hH DWREA is in the nominative case because it is the subject.

And here you admit that they are different.

We don't spell "gift" differently when it is the direct object instead of the subject, but Greek must do so (the technical term is inflection).

And here you admit that there is a difference and that difference is lost in the translation.

So you have confirmed what I, in my ignorance, have said.

Thanks Rob for confirming that there is indeed a difference. A difference that shatters your whole premise.

Please feel free to attempt to resuscitate your dead argument.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Resorting to personal attacks are you?

There's no shame in being ignorant. There is shame in being ignorant and refusing to admit it or do something about it.

Go ask Dan Peterson, Maklelan, or anyone with formal training in Greek, and they'll confirm that what I said is true. There is no difference in the meaning of the word from one case spelling to the next -- only a difference in its grammatical place in the sentence structure.

Please don't waste our time until you have done this.

[David T]

And here you admit that there is a difference and that difference is lost in the translation.

So you have confirmed what I, in my ignorance, have said.

Thanks Rob for confirming that there is indeed a difference. A difference that shatters your whole premise.

Please feel free to attempt to resuscitate your dead argument.

Vance...seriously... you're wrong. It is not an insult to call you ignorant in this case - it's a fact. The difference is untranslatable because we don't make the distinction in English. There is no 'adding of words', or 'removing of words' that would clarify the meaning in English. The only difference is the grammatical case as to where it's being directed.

All you're doing is flaunting ignorance, and claiming a victory. That's another good solid way to make sure nobody takes you seriously. This is not 'defending the faith'.

This is not a case of 'not being translated correctly'. It's a case of you not understanding the text.