[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: The Origins of the King James Bible Source: Smithsonian URL Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart ... -james-bible-180956949/?no-ist Published: Oct 17, 2015 Author: Erin Blakemore Post Date: 2015-10-17 05:19:05 by Willie Green Keywords: None Views: 23140 Comments: 83 A handwritten draft of the world's most famous bible has been discovered in England When an archive yields an unexpected discovery, it's usually cause for celebration. But when that discovery involves the world's most famous bible, scholarly excitement mounts to ecstastic levels. The earliest known draft of the King James Bible has been unearthed at the University of Cambridge, writes Jennifer Schuessler for The New York Times, and it’s being lauded as a critical find for historians. The draft was discovered by Jeffrey Alan Miller, an American scholar conduct in the Cambridge archives. It contains the handwriting of dozens of authors, dating from 1604 to 1608. That handwriting is a crucial find, Schuessler writes, because it reveals how they translated and assembled the text. "There's a strong desire to see the King James Bible as a uniform object, and a belief that it's great because of its collaborative nature," Miller tells Schuessler. "It was incredibly collaborative, but it was done in a much more complicated, nuanced, and at times individualistic way than we've ever really had good evidence to believe." Forty-seven translators and scholars produced the King James Bible, which was first published in 1611. The project dates back to 1604, when King James I decided a new version could help consolidate political power, writes NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagartay. A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation. The result became an incredible, long-lasting success. The King James Bible has influenced language, literature and culture for more than 400 years. In the Times Literary Supplement, Miller writes that his discovery suggests that the text may be "far more a patchwork of individual translations — the product of individual translators and individual companies working in individual ways — than has ever been properly recognized." Perhaps there is always more to discover after all. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited) This doesn't surprise me. The myth the KJB as a work done equally by committee (companies) always seemed shaky to me, even going so far as to dub the committee as The Translators. In real life, you more often have individual contributors to committee work doing a lot more of the work. And dominant personalities tend to leave their marks on committee work. And that is what these notes indicate. Not all KJB translators were created equal. And some were more motivated to do the work. A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation. They downplay the popularity and ubiquity of the Calvin's Geneva Bible. It contained footnotes about tyrant kings who lose their divine right to rule (as it was considered in the monarchical era). Our Founders, many of them subversive Presbyterian Puritan types, overwhelmingly used the Geneva Bible. And you read echoes of this tyrant-loses-divine-mandate-to-rule in period pieces like the Declaration of Independence and other writings. King James produced his bible with one requirement: no (subversive) footnotes. He was too late and revolutionary fervor in America continued to be stoked until the American Revolution during the reign of George III. The KJB had a deliberate political motive behind it. So did the footnotes attached to the Geneva Bible. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-17   8:45:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: TooConservative (#1) And all of the well-known earlier English translations of the Bible: Douay-Rheims, Geneva, Bishops', KJV, relied very heavily on Tyndale as the guts of their work. The later translators all used Tyndale as the base, and then compared their work to his. A massive percentage of the Geneva, KJV and the other Bibles is really Tyndale. It would be far more truthful to say that Tyndale is the source of the English Bible, and the Geneva, King James, Bishops and others were editors who amended and embellished 10 or 15% of it. Because that's really the truth. At Douay, and at Geneva, and in the committees, they did not really translate the Bible. What they really did was take Tyndale's translation and compare it to their own work, and then emend and edit Tyndale. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-17   9:48:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Vicomte13 (#2) A massive percentage of the Geneva, KJV and the other Bibles is really Tyndale. Even NIV and NKJV borrow readings from the Tyndale. This is especially true of foundational verses, the ones that people often memorize. It is interesting to trace the readings of the various versions. For all that they brag about their pedigree from the Alexandrian texts, they often rely on quotes of English translations of the Vulgate using Byzantine manuscripts in support. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-17   17:25:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: TooConservative (#3) (Edited) It's true of the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles too. Bishop Challoner, in the mid-1700s, carefully edited the Douai-Rheims Bible to reflect the KJV language as close as theology would bear...which is almost entirely, and the KJV itself is about 80% Tyndale. As for the Orthodox, they have used Protestant and Catholic English Bibles for most of their history. Only recently have "Orthodox" Bibles been translated. The biggest seller is the "Orthodox Study Bible", the New Testament of which is the NKJV, which is about 75% Tyndale. If you pick up a Bible in English, between 75% and 95% of the words you read are Tyndale's translation. The Bible in English is really the Bible of Tyndale, as edited by later committees. The supermajority of every English Bible translation of any importance is Tyndale. That's just a fact. And considering that Tyndale died at the orders of Henry VIII for having made the translation, there is a certain authority to be had from the seal of a martyr's blood. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-18   14:11:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Vicomte13 (#4) So Vic, which Bible do you personally use? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-18   20:05:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#4) If you pick up a Bible in English, between 75% and 95% of the words you read are Tyndale's translation. The Bible in English is really the Bible of Tyndale, as edited by later committees. The supermajority of every English Bible translation of any importance is Tyndale. That's just a fact. Nevertheless, it isn't a fact widely recognized when we debate the merits of various translations. A key question is how often the dead hand of Tyndale still affects the text when it finally gets written into a particular bible translation. In a religious text, we expect certain qualities to endure. We are fond of certain familiar phrases. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-18   22:47:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Stoner (#5) So Vic, which Bible do you personally use? I personally use several, for different purposes. When I am, myself, trying to study the Law of God - something that I think is important because God lavished so much attention to it, I use a mechanical translation of the Hebrew Massoretic Text. I also take a lot of time with the Hebrew pictographs, which I have to mostly decode myself, because there does not exist a translation based on the pictographs. For the English of the Old Testament, I use a mechanical translation and I look at the pictographs - when I am reading for my own purposes, to know and to understand (as opposed to the purpose of trying to discuss things with others). When it comes to the New Testament, my preference is to place three things side by side: the Greek text (in either the Alexandrine, Byzantine or Texts Receipts format, as long as there is an indication where they differ). I want to actually see the Greek, because I am very untrusting of the bias of translators. Then I look at the Vulgate Latin side by side with the Greek. I don't speak Greek, so I have to rely on translations. I don't speak Latin either, but I do speak French, and can read Spanish, and had four years of Latin. I can't read Latin like a novel, but when side-by-side with the Greek, or ANY English translation, I can read the Latin almost like French. I like the Latin because it is only partly a translation. It was a living language of half of the Christian world at the time of Christ. The Scriptural documents are written in Greek (at least probably they were - some things might have been written in Latin), but they were all written within the Roman Empire, and the Greco-Roman culture was a culture. Latin was not some faraway distant-future language to Greek, in the way that Greek, Latin and English all are to Old Testament Hebrew, or English is to New Testament Greek. Bilingualism between Latin and Greek was the norm among educated people of the Empire, and Christianity was spread all over the Latin half of the Empire during the lives of the Apostles also. So, while the New Testament was (probably) originally composed in Greek in the Greek-speaking East, parts of it were composed in Greek, or perhaps even in Latin, from Rome. And while WE see Greek and Latin as very different, a closer read by a discerning mind familiar with the languages realizes that much of the differences appear to be from differences in spelling - that at the roots of pronunciation some letters shift, but that the languages are closer than they appear. Zeus, deus, and theos appear to be three every different words, but three people speaking the same letters with a speech impediment or an accent could produce any of those words. They're not really different words - they're different pronunciations of the same root word. Greek and Latin are cousin languages. So when Jerome, a Roman in the Greek-speaking Roman East, was translating the Greek Scriptures into Latin, he was doing so as a native speaker of both languages, both of which were the languages of one empire, of which he was a very well-educated citizen, and it was the same Empire that had killed Christ and persecuted the Apostles. So Jerome knew very well the idioms, and the mindset, and the structures and legal concepts of the Empire. He wasn't translating something distant and foreign. He was doing the equivalent of taking Washington's letters and translating them into modern English, as a modern American within the culture understanding the reference points. It's not a little deal to me. It means, to me, that Jerome's selections of idioms are certainly to be correct, and modern translators' choices that differ with Jerome are almost certain to be wrong...because Jerome was a Roman with native fluency of both languages, while any modern translator has only book knowledge of the Roman empire, culture, idiom or either the Latin or ancient Greek language. Jerome had access to much better manuscripts also. So, the Vulgate is the best source for translation issues. I've read the Bible so many times that I'm not going through trying to learn and understand what is in there. Rather, I focus on "hard sayings" and things I find difficult. And in almost all of those cases, I find that the difficulty arises in the English. The Latin, Greek or Hebrew make sense. In such cases, I simply dismiss all of the English translations and go with the Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Where the Latin conflicts with some translations from the Greek, this is because the modern English translator is using a different manuscript than Jerome. I consider Jerome to be far more authoritative than any modern, for the reasons I've already given, so where Jerome differs from, say, the Nesle Aland text or the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrine Texts, I assume that Jerome was working from the most authoritative sources, while moderns work from fragments and assorted artifacts. In other words, the Latin is definitive. Where the Greek LXX and the Massoretic Text differ, I generally assume that the issue is a matter of manuscript differences, but I find the LXX to be more persuasive than the Massoretic Text - HOWEVER, you can't use the LXX for pictographs, so the Massoretic Text cannot be ignored. Because the issues upon which I focus are very technical, I have several different texts open at once. If I'm just READING the Bible, just to read it, then I still use the Mechanical Translation for the Torah, The Orthodox Study Bible for the rest of the Old Testament, and the Eastern Orthodox Bible for the New Testament. I do this because the Mechanical Translation is the most precisely accurate, the Orthodox Study Bible is the only translation of the LXX for the rest of the Old Testament, and the Greek Orthodox translation of the Greek in the EOB is simply superior in terms of accuracy, in part because the Greek Orthodox simply don't have the long and complicated Reformation era bickering and tensions, and so don't have an English-language tradition to defend. Catholics and Protestants are partisans of particular translations for historical reasons, and I find no value in those historical reasons. The Greeks, I find, simply want to accurately convey the exact meanings in English, and the EOB does a better job of that for the New Testament than any other translation, IMHO. So, when I personally use the Bible, for my purposes, that's what I do. But when I am discussing the Bible with other people, the text I use is generally the KJV. That's because most of the people with whom I am discussing things are Protestants, and they automatically distrust me and anything I have to say because I'm a Catholic. I know this, so I use the KJV to discuss things using the text that some of them claim is inspired, but that none of them reject. It doesn't make any difference to me, really, because the discussions I have with other people are not about the details that fascinate me, but about politics and morality as presented in Scripture. And for that purpose, the KJV is superlative, given that it was written by extremely conservative people of a very Catholic tradition (though Protestants) in an age of faith, and is written in a style that sounds very authoritative to minds easily bent by archaic British English. I'm always happy to use the KJV, because the KJV is much less vague and more direct on the points I think are more important than more modern hedged versions. So in these arguments I'm always pleased to go "KJV Only". Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   1:03:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#4) If you pick up a Bible in English, between 75% and 95% of the words you read are Tyndale's translation. The Bible in English is really the Bible of Tyndale, as edited by later committees. The supermajority of every English Bible translation of any importance is Tyndale. That's just a fact. Oh nonsense. I have had dealings with translation committees, and know how some work. The Lockman Foundation is but one example. The NASB is a prime example of a fresh translation, with every member having a Ph.D.and proficent in multiple languages. To make one change in a passage in the NASB 1995 Update required the approval of 21 Ph.Ds on the committee. The very fact that the translators are reviewing numerous manuscripts in different languages destroys your argument. There are several one man translations to which your view would apply, but certainly not to all. "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-19   5:42:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Willie Green (#0) God translated the KJV as promised. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   8:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: A K A Stone (#9) (Edited) God translated the KJV as promised. You're a KJV-Onlyist? This is why I use the KJV for discussion purposes. I've never heard of an NIV-Onlyist, or an ESV-Onlyist, but KJV-Onlyism, KJV- inspired-translationism, is a thing. When you say "God translated the KJV", do you mean by that that the KJV-English is itself inspired, such that it, in the English, has the full authority of God behind it, that it is the "real" text of Scripture, in English, as inspired by God? There are KJV-Onlyists who are "inspired translationists" who believe that the KJV itself, is a direct revelation of the Scripture in God-inspired English. That among the manuscripts, God chose the TRUE manuscript, and that God inspired the translators to write the English that perfectly says in English the true inspired textual meaning of God. This is the strongest form of KJV-Onlyism, because it would mean that when one finds an ancient manuscript in Greek, one can compare that Greek manuscript to the English of the KJV and realize if that Greek manuscript is true Scripture or is a copy that was damaged in some uninspired way. Pure, full-strength KJV-Onlyism is my favorite kind, because it means that all of the various manuscripts in various languages that preceded it, with all of the gaps and confusion, were completely settled by God, for God provided a new, complete, perfect, inspired set of Scriptures, in English, in the age of the printing press, to REPLACE the confusion from the welter of ancient sources and languages. Inspired-KJVism means that one need not study Latin or Greek, or engage in any archaeology, to know PRECISELY what God intended Scripture to be, for he revealed the entirety of Scripture in English at the beginning of the 17th Century, in the age of the printing press. So, to fully know God's inspired Scripture, one must learn English, for the best, the most accurate and the most complete revelation of Scripture occurred in English, in 1611, with the publication of the KJV. The editorial choices of the KJV translators and publishers were all inspired by God, making the KJV 1611 version perfect - THE revealed word of God. Presumably you would accept an updating of spelling as acceptable, but not punctuation, because punctuation adds or subtracts meaning, so God conveyed the perfect punctuation. I do not believe KJV-Only Inspired-translationism myself, but I certainly prefer it as a basis for discussion, for it cuts through all of the fog and eliminates consultation of any other text. There was no standard dictionary of English in 1611, so a little bit of knowledge of archaic forms is necessary (thou vs. you vs. ye, for example, or "suffer the little children..."), but that's easily handled. KJV-Onlyism has the virtue of reductionist clarity. It establishes a set of rules, and a limitative text. It takes Hebrew, Greek and Latin off the table: the English was directly inspired by God. It takes all discussions about ancient manuscripts off the table: the English was inspired by God, so therefore ancient manuscripts can be compared to the English of the KJV to determine whether or not the ancient manuscripts are accurate or in error. It removes modern pedantism, because there was no dictionary in 1611, so the words mean what they meant in common usage then, not esoteric meanings that came later. There are no footnotes, which means that nothing was added. But there was versification, which means that God established the versification as part of the inspired scripture. Moreover, there are names to the books, so the NAMES are also inspired - by calling a Gospel "Mark" in the KJV, God has revealed that Mark was the author. Therefore, there is no need to waste time debating who wrote it: God revealed that with the KJV. Likewise, the canon was definitively revealed by God with the 1611 translation: the revealed texts, plus the apocrypha. Would you consider the original translators notes to be inspired also? What is the limit of inspiration? Is it everything that is within the cover of the original publication, first printing? I like that best of all, because now we have an authoritative set of texts, limited by direct divine inspiration, with specific words, punctuation and spelling. How far does your KJV-Onlyism go? As far as you go, I am eager to go farther. In its highest, best form, KJV-Onlyism gives us the only text certain to be complete and point perfect, right down to the period. The original printing of 1611 IS God's revealed word in the most perfect incarnation of KJV-Onlyism. And that means that all discussion shifts away from archaeology, manuscripts and translation to the literal words themselves, exactly as they appear on the page. This approach appeals very much to my lawyer's mind, because it closes the canon and gives a definitive text. And that takes away everybody's wiggle room, just like with the Constitution. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   9:29:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#10) Getting ready head out. So I will keep it short and simple. God said he would have his word translated. I'm paraphrasing. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   9:33:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: A K A Stone (#11) God said he would have his word translated. Yes, what I'm asking you is this: Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? Your answer determines the degree to which I need to limit myself to the KJV EXCLUSIVELY when having discussions with you. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   10:00:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#10) In its highest, best form, KJV-Onlyism gives us the only text certain to be complete and point perfect, right down to the period. You really are LF's premiere KJV-Onlyist.     : ) Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-19   10:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: TooConservative (#13) You really are LF's premiere KJV-Onlyist. : ) I respect KJV-Onlyists for their devotion to a principle. I love the principle because it limits all religious discussion to one specific text as the sole source of authority. Obviously once things are limited to a single text, then the person with the strongest reading ability and best memory has the advantage. And that would be me. Of course I don't really believe in Sola Scriptura. Literacy is not a requirement for salvation. Still, as a tool for instruction and resolution of issues among literate, litigious moderns, there's nothing like a text. And KJV-Onlyism settles utterly the question of the Battle of the Texts, although it then opens up the problem of 17th Century upper-class British English versus 21st Century middle class American English. Permit me an example: I know that what John actually wrote, translated into English, is this: 'This is the way that God loved the world: he gave his only begotten son...". I know that the KJV says that too. "God so loved the word that he gave his only begotten son..." means just exactly that, in 17th Century English - he did it "just so". But I also know that 20th and 21st Century English speakers misread this and think it says "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son...", which is not what the Greek OR the KJV English really mean. I know that, but I also know that trying to use a translation that says "This is the way God loved the world: he gave his only begotten son..." would provoke howls of "Heresy!" from middle class American traditionalist Christians because the words are different from what they're used to, and so seem to be an attempt to "twist" Scripture. The real twisting has been done by the change of language and time and culture, but I know that the earnest, faithful, suspicious middle American will never accept that from a Catholic. He will smell sulfur. I'm pleased, then, to stay with the KJV text, for two reasons: It actually says, in its 17trh Century idiom: "This is the way God loved the world...", so by accepting the 17th Century "God so loved the world..." language I am not compromising anything on my side - what I wrote in 21st Century American English is exactly what that 17th Century British English says. But I also know that Americans who have invested "THIS MUCH" theology into that "so" aren't going to accept any change of the language. So by accepting the KJV text I can compromise and leave them their language intact, avoiding an unnecessary conflict, while still being correct. And then I can go find piles of Shakespeare and Marlowe and Bacon and others writing in that period to demonstrate that "so" means - "just so" - "in this way", and not "this much" - when written by a hand holding a pen in 1611. That, then, turns out to be an edifying discussion, for Shakespeare and Marlowe and Bacon have been invoked as contemporary demonstrations (as there was no dictionary in 1611), and then my interlocutor can keep his precious traditional language while coming away with a different point of view. KJV-Only Sola Scripturalism is a TOOL that makes a conversation possible between a Catholic and an evangelical Protestant. DOCTRINALLY he believes it, and I think it's nonsense, but I'm willing to use his text to avoid dispute. That's why I like it. As TRUTH? No. But as a medium of communication between hostile brothers and sisters that need to reconcile, it's a good tool. Incidentally, there's a Catholic form of KJV-Onlyism we might call "Vulgate- onlyism", and an Orthodox form of it we could call "LXX-Onlyism". And we should remember that the Massoretic Text tradition, which comes out the post- Christian revolution, post-Temple, Jewish "Council of Jamnia" is itself a "Hebrew-text-Onlyism" that stands directly opposed to LXX-Onlyism for the Old Testament. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   11:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: A K A Stone (#9) God translated the KJV as promised. So your God only loved the English speaking people on earth, and only those born after 1611 or better yet 1769? "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-19   12:11:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Vicomte13 (#7) " I personally use several, for different purposes. " Thanks for the reply Vic. You are educated enough to use all the versions you discussed. I guess I will just stick with the KJV. I would guess that I cannot go wrong with that. I have considered acquiring a copy of The Torah. Just for curiosity. I assume it is available in english. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-19   13:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: GarySpFC (#15) Do you think God wasn't behind the King James Bible? Psalm 37 Don  posted on  2015-10-19   13:31:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: GarySpFC (#15) So your God only loved the English speaking people on earth, and only those born after 1611 or better yet 1769? I don't see how you get that silly notion out of what I said. When was the first Bible? Did your god only love people born after whenever you say the first Bible was published? I don't think so and I doubt you do either. So why do you jump to silly conclusions based on what I said? Did or did not God say he would translate his word for I believe all tongues or something of that order without looking it up directly. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   14:14:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. I think that the Holy Spirit worked behind the scenes as God promised and no matter what the King wanted Gods word came out. As it did in other languages for other people. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   14:18:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Stoner (#16) I have considered acquiring a copy of The Torah. Just for curiosity. I assume it is available in english. You already have the Torah. The Torah is Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy. The first five "books" of your KJV is the Torah. Perhaps you meant the Talmud. Don't bother. It's 26 volumes long - a veritable encyclopedia of Jewish law. And what it mostly consists of is endless detailed discussions and debates about stuff that is mostly in Leviticus. The oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was written closest in time to Jesus, but it's still hundreds of years later. To know what Judaism was in the First Century, the best source outside of the New Testament is Josephus. Get his complete works. You will find them tedious and boring, and very long. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   14:30:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Vicomte13 (#20) " You already have the Torah. " Thanks for the clarification! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-19   14:41:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: A K A Stone (#19) I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. Ok. "Equal" here means that you think that the KJV has the same authority as the particular ancient manuscripts upon which it was based. And because you think that the KJV translation was itself inspired, you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. Others will debate you on this, but I won't, because the debate will be fruitless. I'm fine using the KJV, alone. The original KJV translation included the Apocrypha, so I assume that you accept that the Apocrypha are good for reading and instruction, but that no new doctrine should be asserted from those books, yes? In effect, this means that for our discussions, we don't refer to the Apocrypha. That's fine by me, for discussion purposes. I see that you will not accept any argument that contradicts the KJV language if it is based on a different translation of the texts, so the KJV English text is definitive. Ok. This narrows the field to a single text we all can use. I can accept that for discussion purposes. My acceptance doesn't mean that I believe the things I accept them - it means that for our discussions I will only use the KJV as Scripture, I won't use the so-called "Apocrypha", and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. We've narrowed the field to one text, in English. This is why I like KJV-Onlyism: it greatly simplifies discussion. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   14:46:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Vicomte13 (#20) The Talmud is full of Jewish mysticism. I always liked the advice to walk half a mile after visiting the privy so you can shake off the privy demon. Almost like the burning of fish guts we see in Tobit to ward off evil spirits. There's a superstitious mystical side of Judaism many do not consider. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:32:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#23) (Edited) The Talmud is full of Jewish mysticism. There's a superstitious mystical side of Judaism many do not consider. I always thought superstitious and mystical were two different things. My view is that when Judaism lost the temple priesthood their religion fell into the caretaker hands of local holymen and some were smart educated men but others were barely literate country bumpkins who dealt with stuff like bathroom demons and what not. There was no one to say what was right or wrong. In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. Pericles  posted on  2015-10-19   16:42:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Pericles (#24) In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. I believe you have the historical context correct. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:46:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: A K A Stone (#18) My 2 cents. The KJV is an excellent translation given what manuscripts were available at the time. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:49:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Vicomte13 (#22) you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. I never said that. I would say it has greater authority then the NIV. I can't speak for all translations. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   17:01:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: redleghunter (#23) I always liked the advice to walk half a mile after visiting the privy so you can shake off the privy demon. Almost like the burning of fish guts we see in Tobit to ward off evil spirits. Or the shedding of blood to atone for sin... Or the burning of animals on the altar to make a "sweet smell to the Lord"... Or the pouring out of libations onto the ground, or mixing of salt into grain. Or circumcision, for that matter. The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. Or consider the arduously detailed description of each and every implement, article, curtain and board in the Tabernacle, how God Himself, the Almighty, lavished time and energy giving explicit details on how the bells were to be sown on the ephod, with what sort of thread, or what sort of stones were to be on the ephod, in what order. It reads like the sort of minute description of things that a daydreaming teenager would write. There is so much in the Scriptures themselves that seems to be nonsensical superstition. Consider baptism. If baptism of faith is all that is really needed, why the insistence - without explanation - on this not-strictly- necessary water ritual? Or consider the brazen serpent. People get bitten by venimous snakes, they have to look at a brazen serpent in order to be saved. Then they begin to treat the brazen serpent as an idol, so one of the kings destroys it. Or the Ark of the Covenant with all of that ornament...to be hidden away unseen. Why is it necesssary to eat bread and drink wine for salvation? God's reasoning in Scripture is also very strange, and contradictory. In one place he warns that sin will be visited down the generations. In another he says that men are accountable only for their own sins. Scripture Alone, if that's all I had, would persuade me that the Judaeo- Christian God is a myth like all of the others. But of course Scripture was written by men. The miracles are what make me stand up and notice the Christian God in particular. Not the miracles that are written down, because those could just as well be myths - anybody can write anything, and all religions have - but the actual physical miracles that can be studied. But I'm not doing the examination of those things either, am I? All of that evidence could be falsified. I don't think that it is, but it COULD be. And the artifacts themselves are as baffling as any of the written things. Why would God do it this way? What is important? In the end, I know what I was shown. That those things happened is true, which means that there are indeed spirits and powers. The miracles tell me which one to look at as true. The sweeping changes to the world that the Church has done show the power of change. And then there are the Scriptures, which purport to tell us things unseen. There are problems and weaknesses in every one of these sources, which is why no two people have exactly the same beliefs. But there's still a "there" there. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:05:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone (#27) I never said that. I would say it has greater authority then the NIV. I can't speak for all translations. OK. I will stick to the KJV when writing to you. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:06:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Vicomte13 (#22) and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. If you know those languages then use them. Or if you trust the translations then use them. I just don't know those languages. So I can only know what people say those languages say. So I would have to accept that someone is telling me the truth when I don't know if they are or aren't. I understand English. No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I have seen things in the NIV that seem to contradict other verses. So I just stick to the KJV because that is what I understand. So if someone quote A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   17:07:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pericles (#24) In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. You are correct. Modern rabbinical Judaism is a sort of "oral tradition alone" Judaism. The Church is the continuation of the Temple under a new covenant Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: A K A Stone (#30) (Edited) No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:12:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Vicomte13 (#32) I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Do you speak Hebrew? Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   19:10:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. I am going to show you plenty of contradictions in the KJV. That way we don't have to speak Hebrew. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   19:26:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Vicomte13 (#34) I am going to show you plenty of contradictions in the KJV. You are going to show me what you think are contradictions. But if you pray on it and seek the truth you will see that there aren't any contradictions. Just misunderstandings. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   19:27:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: A K A Stone (#35) You are going to show me what you think are contradictions. But if you pray on it and seek the truth you will see that there aren't any contradictions. Just misunderstandings. They are real contradictions. Some are glaring. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   19:40:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Vicomte13 (#28) Or the shedding of blood to atone for sin... Or the burning of animals on the altar to make a "sweet smell to the Lord"... Or the pouring out of libations onto the ground, or mixing of salt into grain. Or circumcision, for that matter. The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. Not even in the same ball park as privy demons. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   22:54:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: redleghunter (#37) Cicumcision is a lot worse than a privy demon! Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-20   1:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Vicomte13 (#34) I want to see these contradictions. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-08   15:34:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: redleghunter (#37) (Edited) The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. Some cultures created multiple gods and even contests between Gods in their attempt to devise explanations. We attempt to dignify ours by calling it Scripture. rlk  posted on  2015-11-08   18:05:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: redleghunter (#37) The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. Some cultures created multiple gods and even contests between Gods in their attempt to devise explanations. We attempt to dignify ours by calling it Scripture. rlk  posted on  2015-11-08   18:07:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: ebonytwix (#39) Alright. Then I'll point out some that are glaring, and some that are subtle. There are plenty of things that are not contradictions internal to the Bible, but that contradict with Christian traditions. Those AREN'T contradictions - they're examples of the differences between the written tradition and the oral traditions. Here, I'll stick to the actual contradictions. One of the most glaring is the fact that Abraham used the name YHWH and referred to God as YHWH. And yet later, when YHWH is speaking to Moses, He says that he is revealing his name, YHWH, for the first time, that Abraham knew him as El Elyon, but not as YHWH. This is a flat contradiction. The contradiction exists in Hebrew too, but the Hebrew lets you sidle away from it by the fact that the name YHWH is also a verb tense of the verb to be. And if you do that in the Hebrew, you know you're taking some leaps to try to avoid a contradiction that is really there. In English there isn't a way past it though:it's a contradiction. God said to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name YHWH, but Abraham used that very name, and even named a place "YHWH". It's a contradiction. Does that fact MATTER, that it's a contradiction? It matters to "every word dictated" literalists, yes. Doesn't matter to Catholics and Orthodox, though. THere's one. I didn't get the citations because I don't have a Bible in my hand where I am. This is not hard stuff to find, though, if you know your way around the text. Just open Genesis, page to the sections regarding Abraham, and read the story. Note each interaction with God. Use a highlighter. Note that Abraham calls God YHWH, names a place YHWH-something (and the text tells us, helpfully, that it's still called that "to this day"). Now skip over the story of Jacob and Joseph to the story of Moses, early in Exodus, and read Moses' encounter with YHWH in the burning bush. Chapter and verse are not part of Scripture. The stories are. It's better for you to read the stories, so that you have the fuller context. I'm going to restrict my posting to answering you, because you asked. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-08   18:55:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: rlk (#40) The comments you responded to are not mine. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-08   19:03:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Vicomte13 (#42) One of the most glaring is the fact that Abraham used the name YHWH and referred to God as YHWH. And yet later, when YHWH is speaking to Moses, He says that he is revealing his name, YHWH, for the first time, that Abraham knew him as El Elyon, but not as YHWH. This is a flat contradiction. The contradiction exists in Hebrew too, but the Hebrew lets you sidle away from it by the fact that the name YHWH is also a verb tense of the verb to be. And if you do that in the Hebrew, you know you're taking some leaps to try to avoid a contradiction that is really there. In English there isn't a way past it though:it's a contradiction. God said to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name YHWH, but Abraham used that very name, and even named a place "YHWH". It's a contradiction. Would you post the actual verses to make it more clear? Then explain your position with references to what verses you are talking about. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-08   20:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: Vicomte13 (#42) So why does such contradictions exist? Is it written by two different people and does it invalidate the Bible? ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-08   22:10:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: rlk (#40) They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. As in a human reincarnated as a butterfly or chimpanzee? Sorry you walked right into that one. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-09   2:55:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: ebonytwix (#45) So why does such contradictions exist? Is it written by two different people and does it invalidate the Bible? To what extent does a contradiction "invalidate" something? I would say that only the thing that is contradicted is rendered unclear. Did Abraham know the name YHWH or not? Unknown. The Scripture clearly shows that he did, but then says he didn't. So, as to the question itself: did Abraham know the name YHWH or not, the correct answer is: we don't know, because the Bible contradicts. But then we can go on and ask: Does it MATTER? And the answer to the question itself is that it does not. It makes no difference to anything of importance about the Biblical story whether Abraham knew or did not know the specific name "YHWH", that name, versus the others, doesn't make any difference to us in our way of thinking about God. All that the contradiction does is create a massive impediment to those who would make an idol of the Bible by claiming that IT is letter perfect, written by God, and that therefore people can suspend their own reason, and ignore the evidence of their own eyes, ears, hands and minds in favor of what somebody else says about an old book. I think that the old book is very important, because it's the only place where what God said and did at key times in history is recorded. That remains true even if the factual details of the book are not totally reliable. What THAT means, for example, is that people who believe in Young Earth Creationism and people who believe in Very Old Earth Directed Evolution, should not be excommunicating each other regarding God. To use a famous quote: "The Bible teaches how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   11:29:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Vicomte13 (#47) Well, usually people will held up standards of truth to have no perceived invalidating information (which is usually found in a contradiction as you said, or a lack of source, ect) since truth is supposed to be wholly objective and flat out there. With contradictions, it puts out a rise of suspicion of the legitimacy of the source since it made an error, especially the legitimacy of other texts as well. Many people in America who are Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe. So did we really evolve from monkeys or was Adam and Eve all a metaphor for us to understand more? By the way, I agree with you completely, just up for a little debate :) ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-09   17:54:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: ebonytwix (#48) With contradictions, it puts out a rise of suspicion of the legitimacy of the source since it made an error, especially the legitimacy of other texts as well. A mathematical hypothesis is refuted by a single counterexample. Life isn't math. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   18:05:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: ebonytwix (#48) Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. Within the Scriptures there are references to "Scripture", but of course "scripture" just means "writing". Undoubtedly it referred to writings that Jews and Christians considered to be sacred, set apart, holy, but there was never, and still is not, full agreement on what set of writings really ARE "THE Scriptures" - books are in or out of different canons. And even within a given canonical tradition, there is not agreement on which ancient manuscripts are the most reliable. Every single ancient manuscript is handwritten - the printing press wasn't invented until the 1400s - and no two ancient manuscripts are alike. There are differences between every one of them. So, what exactly is "Scripture"? And what does "perfect" mean? The real answer to the whole question is this: don't make idols out of books and specific pieces of paper, or languages: the letter kills but the spirit gives life. God had a pretty short set of GENERAL PRINCIPLES for guiding human life, so that humans could be healthy and happy and harmoniously fill their role of world dominion. And that is what the Bible is: a collection of histories - of what God said, the "pointed out path" - pointed out by God - THAT is what "Torah" really means. It doesn't mean "law", it means "pointed out path" - the marked path through the howling desert for the safety of the shepherd and his flock. Step off the path and you might survive, but then again, you might not. So here's the path. "Law", especially in the minds of Gentile half-pagans, is a think that is ENFORCED, it is the RIGHT to power, to dominate. But the path pointed out by God for us is that path through a dangerous desert pointed out by a loving Father. The Law punishes. But the real world hurts and harms because of its nature, and the Pointed Out Path is the way THROUGH the world with all of its risks and pitfalls, so that one arrives safely with one's sheep at the oasis. Even the mindset of God and men is different. Men restlessly seek power, dominion and the power to judge. And they twist God into that image, because God judges. He DOES judge, but everything that happens -for good or ill - is his judgment. He doesn't think like us. The Bible is a RECORD of some of the things that God said, the important ones. God repeats himself, a lot, because in the Scriptures he is talking to a bunch of different people at different times, and he is speaking to them in their condition - and he knows their hearts - so sometimes the things he said that are recorded really had MEANING to the one hearing it, but those bystanders also hearing it heard words without the inner context of the target hearer, and formed their own conclusion. "None comes to the Father except through me" is true, but it doesn't mean "Nobody but non-Catholic Christians makes it into the City of God". Men STRAIN to turn a written set of oral histories into a LAW book, because they crave LAW, COMMAND, AUTHORITY. Then, having a book, they put verse numbers and chapters into it that God never put there, and try to turn a loose oral history, written down, into a tight set of legal principles and statutes. The Pharisees did not less, and Jesus didn't like them much. Truth is, the oral histories written down convey a GENERAL MESSAGE from God, a GENERAL SET OF PRINCIPLES, and give a GENERAL view of whence we came (from God) and whence we are going (back to God), and then a few very specific things that really, REALLY make God angry. This means that people have to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things, and just have the written-down oral history as a BACKSTOP. If the "Holy" Spirit is urging you to go on a tear of killing people, you know that's not really the HOLY Spirit doing that, because God spoke long and loud about that. And so forth. The Bible can lead you to God, to walk on the pointed-out-path, but it can lead you away from God pretty fast too, if you read it as a lawbook and read into it that YOU are the law enforcer. You're not. No matter who you are. And you never, ever will be. If that is what you crave, then the path you're walking is not the Pointed- Out Path from God, Crave something different instead. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-09   18:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, redleghunter, don (#50) To: ebonytwix Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. First I will give you the full chapter King James version to refute Vics ridicuout ascertation. Then I will highlight a few points. 2 Timothy Chapter 3 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:44:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, redleghunter, don (#50) To: ebonytwix Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:45:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, redleghunter, don (#50) To: ebonytwix Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. 2 Timothy 3 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:47:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, redleghunter, don (#50) To: ebonytwix Christians certainly believe the Bible is perfect, and the Bible itself states that I believe The Bible doesn't state that about the Bible, because the Bible never references itself. 2 Timothy 3 7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:49:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: Vicomte13, ebonytwix, A K A Stone, GarySpFc, Don (#42) One of the most glaring is the fact that Abraham used the name YHWH and referred to God as YHWH. And yet later, when YHWH is speaking to Moses, He says that he is revealing his name, YHWH, for the first time, that Abraham knew him as El Elyon, but not as YHWH. This is a flat contradiction. The contradiction exists in Hebrew too, but the Hebrew lets you sidle away from it by the fact that the name YHWH is also a verb tense of the verb to be. And if you do that in the Hebrew, you know you're taking some leaps to try to avoid a contradiction that is really there. In English there isn't a way past it though:it's a contradiction. God said to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name YHWH, but Abraham used that very name, and even named a place "YHWH". It's a contradiction. Yes these passages are in the Hebrew and as such Hebrew is concrete, yet profound. So, profoundly concrete or concretely profound. That's the first approach to these passages. The second but first in importance is that as Christians we know God is not a liar and does not make mistakes. The third approach is: God is not a God of confusion. The next one (which not all Christians agree on due to protecting their human traditions) is: God is a God who is sovereign and protects the transmission of His Truth to include what He revealed in writing. Some call this the "God comes both with Word and Power." So taking the above we don't have a contradiction because God preserves what He transmits; He is not a liar; He does not promote confusion and certainly does not make mistakes. So there is no contradiction. We must look at the concrete yet profound and look to other areas of the TaNaKh and Brit HaHadashah to gain an understanding. Or we must look directly at the passages you refer to and profoundly look for the concrete meaning or concretely look at what is profoundly already there. Or do both. The key, IMO, to the friction of the passage is found in the original promise God made with Abraham in Genesis, His continued communication of the promise in space and time then compared to what is going on in Exodus and beyond in space and time; and then come to realize YHWH is MUCH more than the sum of the parts. He is Eternal. The answer is profoundly in The Name. So if this is not a contradiction then what is it? Put simply it is a difficult very Hebrew profound concept. So we can explore the better Hebrew scholars of history if interested. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-09   19:53:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, don (#50) And even within a given canonical tradition, there is not agreement on which ancient manuscripts are the most reliable. 2 timothy 3:5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 timothy 3:7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. It seems to me Vic doesn't believe in the power of God to have a true version of the Bible for Gods people to read. God must want us all confused. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:54:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: redleghunter (#55) I'll have to read that again. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   19:56:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: A K A Stone (#57) I understand...it was concretely profound or profoundly concrete. Have not decided which yet. But I conclude as a Christian that it cannot be a contradiction. Because God does not lie, does not make mistakes and is quite capable of preserving His revelations and words to mankind. I will post some ideas from one of the greatest expounders of the Hebrew mind from the West when I finish my time with Jr. Redlegs instruction for the evening. From John Gill. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-09   20:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#58) But I conclude as a Christian that it cannot be a contradiction. Because God does not lie, does not make mistakes and is quite capable of preserving His revelations and words to mankind. God has repented though. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-09   20:32:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: A K A Stone (#59) God has repented though. I'm not even a believer and that doesn't make any sense to me. What ever happened to the concept of "God gave man free will"? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-09   21:18:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: A K A Stone (#59) Please explain. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-09   22:48:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#60) What ever happened to the concept of "God gave man free will"? I think AKA is referring to God changing a declared judgment based on his compassion, grace, mercy and longsuffering. For example in Jonah. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-09   22:50:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#61) Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-10   0:14:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: sneakypete (#60) "God gave man free will"? Yes that's true. The account of the Garden of Eden teaches that we have free will. Most atheists miss this point. They usually say a loving God would not allow us to make mistakes, sin or get ill, or injured even die. The billion dollar question is why did God give us free will? If we can honestly answer that, then many chips fall in place. The answer is in the open and is demonstrated each day between humans. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   0:15:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: A K A Stone, ebonytwix (#63) Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. "Repented" in the lexicon can mean the following: to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted To be sorry or sorrowful seems to fit modern English with the Hebrew lexicon. Gets back to ebony's question on free will. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   0:21:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: Vicomte13 (#50) >A mathematical hypothesis is refuted by a single counterexample. Life isn't math. People say life, the way it's calculated through science, ect, is very related to Math. ___ Otherwise, yeah, I agree with you. Some questions though, why does God tend to repeat Himself? And how does one know the Spirit one feel's in their heart is really of God? Didn't the Bible say that men's heart deceive themselves.. I'm not sure which context that was in. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-10   3:45:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Vicomte13 (#50) Also, this is going to seem a little out there, but what about the words the bible says about women and men? Particularly their roles and ect. Is it the context of time, actually how God sees it and intended to be, or...? ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-10   3:49:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: A K A Stone (#52) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Of course! Tobit and Wisdom, Sirach and 1 and 2 Maccabbees, Judith - all of that Scripture, inspired by God, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. Trouble for you is, you say that isn't Scripture. Scripture does not define what Scripture is. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-10   9:56:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: ebonytwix (#66) Some questions though, why does God tend to repeat Himself? And how does one know the Spirit one feel's in their heart is really of God? God repeats himself in part because people need to hear things many times before they take it to heart, and in part because the Scripture is merely a record of God actually speaking to people. God speaks to different people at different times, saying the same basic things. So, whenever the account of a different person is given, God appears to be repeating himself, to us, as readers. But those encounters with God were not experienced by the individuals having the encounter as a book, but as a conversation - a conversation that God had with many different people. If you look at the Gospels, you will see Jesus repeating a lot of the material in the Sermon on the Mount (in Matthew) that he says also in the Sermon on the Plain (in Luke). There was no printing press in those days. Most people were illiterate. There were no newspapers, no pamphlets, no radios, no tv. Jesus gave a sermon in one place, and when he went to a different place, the only way those different people were going to hear what he had to say was by him saying it. But he wasn't a tape recorder. He said slightly different things in one place and in the next. Each audience heard the one thing. There are inconsistencies between what he said in one place and in another. But his audiences had no written materials to compare to what he said before. WE do, but all we have are remembered accounts of what he said, recorded by people who were not eyewitnesses, or writing decades later. Maybe the words are verbatim what he said, and he really said different things - so the inconsistency itself is part of the message (and tells us that to understand we need to look higher). Or maybe what he said he meant for THOSE PEOPLE RIGHT THERE LISTENING, and NOT us, because he knew THEIR hearts, but our hearts are different. Or maybe the inconsistencies are due to differences in memory by the writers, or differences in manuscripts. This is why trying to be mathematical about this will fail. The inconsistencies are real, and pervasive, because of the nature of what the text IS. People who strain to make it what it is not have to resort to handwaving. Truth is, the moral message is clear throughout. That isn't garbled. And that's the "Pointed Out Path". The Bible is inspired by God, but it's just a written record of what God said and did. It is full of flaws and inconsistencies. Letter-perfection isn't there, and God obviously didn't think it was NECESSARY for what he was trying to convey by inspiring it. Post-printing-press Christians turn it into an idol by pretending that it is more than what it is. It is not perfect. It is not letter perfect. It is inconsistent on many things. And the Christians who are most idolatrous about the "letter perfection" of the Bible are also the ones who have edited Scripture the most violently, casting aside whole BOOKS of the Scripture because some guys 1500 years after the fact didn't like those books being in the canon. Bibliolatry, like any other idolatry, cannot lead you to life, only to endless disputes and death. It is not in the letter of Scripture that the truth is to be found, but in the Spirit that inspired it. Common themes of morality run through Scripture from beginning to end. God's direct words only amount to about 8% of the text. The rest is history and wisdom and poetry ABOUT God or men of God. If you focus on what God said, you will find a morally consistent message, and an uncomfortable one. Bibliolaters seek to elevate other parts of Scripture, ones that contradict what God said directly, to make doctrines that obscure the hard things God demands of us and substitute what they, the bibliolators, prefer. It's a sterile path that leads into the waterless desert to follow them there. Nobody can teach this stuff to you. God and his spirit can teach you yourself. Get a Bible written in English at the level you understand. I would suggest the Orthodox Study Bible, because it has both testaments and doesn't come from "Jacob or Esau" (the warring Catholics and Protestants). Sit down with a gel marker that won't bleed through the page, and start at Genesis, read, and highlight every place where God Himself speaks. The first word you will highlight (in English) is probably "Let". (For God said, "Let there be light". Progress through the Scriptures in this way. Highlight also what God's angels say. And while you're at it, highlight what the serpent or evil angels say (in a different color), because these are the words of the supernatural beings. In Satan's words you'll see how Satan twists the minds of men. In God's words you will find the pointed-out path. God will point them out to you. In the New Testament, the words of Jesus may ALREADY be printed in red, but you need to read anyway, because the Scriptures have no quotation marks in them, and some things that are not highlighted in red are also God's words (the Father speaks from Heaven a few times, and angels speak, and those words are not printed in red). Also, some words that are printed in red may not, within the context, have actually been spoken by Jesus. There are places in John where it is not clear whether Jesus is speaking, or John is providing an explanation in the middle of the text. Once you've completed that exercise, go back to the beginning and read again, just reading the words you have highlighted. You will discover that the message is clear and integrated, though sometimes inconsistent on details (El Elyon vs. YHWH in Abraham's mouth, for example). You're going to realize that what God laid out of old is mostly repeated by Jesus, and explained, and in many cases shortened, but in other cases intensified. Then you'll know what is expected of you. That's the way to use the Scriptures properly. You'll note that what is expected of you is DEEDS, things that engage you in the world. Endless bickering about Scripture and God is not only NOT expected of you, it's bad for you...which is another reason why bibliolatry is a bad error: it wastes oceans of time. Every king of Israel was supposed to write his own copy of the Torah - the pointed-out path. That's what you're doing when you highlight the words of God and focus on them - and then writing them down. Then you will have written out your own Torah, like a King of Israel, and you will know what to do. Arguing with cannibals online isn't going to really get you to the light. Let God lead you to the light. The way I have suggested is the best way. 2000 pages of Scripture resolves to about 150 pages of God's words, and when you de-dupe those words, you end up with perhaps 50 pages. Distilled down to concepts, its one page - a bit more than 10 Commandments, but the purest of refined gold. Then stop talking about it and do it. Advice I myself would do well to follow! Have I answered your questions? I came back to do this because you asked me to. I think I've given you the keys to the car, how to go do yourself the thing that will best open yourself to the Holy Spirit to then guide you. Oh, and how do you know that the Spirit is Holy? When you encounter a spirit, ask a few things. First, acknowledge Jesus is your lord. Does the spirit agree? Does the spirit agree that Jesus is Son of God? If it does, you're not completely safe (Satan did not flee at the face of Jesus, but challenged him and offered him things). You can't form final conclusions until you're all the way through and seen Jesus' final words on the matter, but once you're there, is the Spirit with you agreeing with Jesus and guiding you, or is it resisting and telling you to do something else? Is the spirit trying to worm out of hard commandments such as forgiveness, truthfulness, avoiding judgmentalism, open-handed giving and non-domination of men over men in religion? If the spirit is trying to pull you away from Jesus to something easier and more confortable, it is not a trustworthy spirit. But if the spirit is foursquare there with you and YHWH and Jesus straight through, then it's real. I don't think there is much more to say. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-10   10:58:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: ebonytwix (#67) Also, this is going to seem a little out there, but what about the words the bible says about women and men? Particularly their roles and ect. Is it the context of time, actually how God sees it and intended to be, or...? "The Bible" is all of it. Read what God said IN the Bible from "Let their be light" through Jesus. Highlight it, reread those parts. Dedupe the repetitions and write out the path pointed out for you by God through his Son and the spirit, the words of God in Scripture. Once you do that, you will realize that God doesn't make a distinction in the path. You are to be truthful, be brave, be sexually moral, worship God, follow Christ, avoid addictions and idolatry, educate your children and take care of your parents, be generous to your brothers and sisters in need and don't store up wealth, leave judging others up to God, and forgive everybody. There's nothing in God's Pointed-Out-Path that makes a tinker's dam of difference whether you're male or female. The Bible is also a history book, and God was dealing with people who had slaves and harsh gender roles, and he gave rules to mitigate those things in ancient Israel. But with Jesus, we have the path pointed out, and the gender rules of old are not on that. Paul espoused the gender roles within the Church that HE preferred, in his letter to Timothy: no women teach. Ignore Paul on this. Jesus was of a different opinion - the first time he revealed his lordship to non-Jews was to the Samaritans, he did it to the woman at the well (St. Photini), and she went and told her people all about him. That's what brought people to Jesus. Likewise, when Jesus rose from the dead, he first revealed himself to a woman, and it was a woman who informed the apostles. And at the cross, when all of the male Apostles but John fled, who remained? The women. So, Paul, a Jew and a Roman, had his cultural view of women, and he wrote it as his rule to Timothy. But Jesus behaved very differently. So, what is the correct answer to this conflict? Jesus is God. Paul is not. Therefore Jesus trumps Paul. Paul had his reasons, in his culture and time. But those reasons were human weaknesses of their cultures. God has always used women to teach men, and lead men, Old Testament and new. Jesus did. And THAT is the correct model. There are biologically assigned roles of men and women for the fathering and mothering of children. God has not assigned spiritual roles to the two, and both are equally acceptable as his followers. That's how Jesus behaved. And Jesus overrides every contradictory thing in the Bible, because he's the risen Son of God, and has the last word on everything. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-10   11:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: ebonytwix (#66) People say life, the way it's calculated through science, ect, is very related to Math. Math is a language devised by people to describe the things we see. To the extent we have made the language useful, it accurately describes things. To the extent that the language of math ceases to describe what is real, the math simply devolves into a human mental game that is unmoored from reality. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-10   11:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: ebonytwix (#66) And how does one know the Spirit one feel's in their heart is really of God? Didn't the Bible say that men's heart deceive themselves.. I'm not sure which context that was in. In the Gospels and apostles' epistles in the NT, their is a strong theme. That is: anyone filled with God's Holy Spirit produces good fruit. Jesus said "you will know them by their fruit." There's much more. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   15:56:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#69) Bibliolatry I really don't know what bibliolatry is. Unless one considers the words contained in the TaNaKh and Brit HaHadashah as a machination of man or a man-made organization. We know from Holy Scriptures that men make idols with their hands after believing it in their heart. If you mean that someone worships the Bible as some list of do's and don'ts to hold power over others, that's possible. But it shows they don't read it and only thump it as a blunt object. But if someone says: the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Then I would say they are sound in their observations and not using the Bible as an idol. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   16:15:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: redleghunter (#72) Thanks. Fruit meaning offspring, correct? ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-10   17:36:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: Vicomte13 (#71) Haha not spirits, but rather, when I pray to God and I feel a voice in my heart - I cannot explain it, but it feels gentle and guides me. It doesn't contradict the Bible, but sometimes it answers my questions whether or not the people I know intentions are bad (for my own safety) or their character in my personal relationship with them. It's not words, but it's feelings and guidance. Also, for some reason when I talk about God or I am reminded about His love, I feel cold, but in a loving way. I don't know why though, I hope there isn't some confusion or miscommunication on my part. I know some other women who are like this who are strong Christians with a more spiritual/emotional side as opposed to your moral/rational approach to it (or what appears to be). Maybe it's how He relates to certain people, or rather how we perceive it. Sorry for rambling. I have the Bible with me now, it's a copy of it and I read some of it. Yes, I need to do what you said. First I need to type of pens you said to get. I thought there were some like wife must be submissive and obey her husband and he must lead, ect? Or women more suit to domestic roles, ect. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-10   17:40:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: ebonytwix (#74) The actions of the follower of Christ. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   18:09:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: ebonytwix (#75) I thought there were some like wife must be submissive and obey her husband and he must lead, ect? Or women more suit to domestic roles, ect. What if Hillary Clinton obeyed the above reference? It would have solved a multitude of problems:) "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   18:11:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#56) I promised from an earlier post to address Exodus 6:3. Again I don't observe a contradiction or error. What we have is IMO a paradox. Exodus 6: 6:2–5. Then God reminded Moses of His character as revealed in His name Yahweh (cf. 3:14). The words I am the Lord occur four times in 6:2–8. As the Lord, Yahweh, He is with His own and is always faithful and true to them. Why did God say that by His name the Lord He had not made Himself known to the patriarchs? Was not God known by the name Yahweh to the patriarchs Abraham … Isaac, and Jacob? Yes, He had been (e.g., Gen. 13:4). But He mainly appeared to them as God Almighty (’l šadday), the One who provides or sustains (cf. comments on Gen. 17:1). He had not displayed Himself to the patriarchs primarily by the name Yahweh. So in Exodus 3:14 God meant that now He was revealing Himself to Moses not only as Sustainer and Provider, but also as the Promise-Keeper, the One who was personally related to His people and would redeem them (cf. comments on 3:14–15).. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-10   18:16:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: ebonytwix (#75) Paul told wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives. He also said that there is neither male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Jesus told us to love one another. So that is what we should do: love one another.. Jesus is Lord, and is one with the Father, and knows what he's talking about. What Jesus says is a commandment from the lips of God. What Paul says is a suggestion for happiness, in his opinion. It is not a commandment from God, and it should not be interpreted as one. There is no domination in true religion, and there is no domination in love either. Paul also said that. Paul wrote a lot of letters to different people who had different needs. He isn't entirely consistent, but that's ok...UNLESS one is trying to be a mathematician and apply the non-contradiction principle to every word of Scripture, written at whatever time, in comparison to every other word, written at whatever time, by whomever, regarding whatever. If you do that with Paul, you end up with a hot mess. Of course, there's a time and a season for everything, and Paul wrote to different people in different times and seasons. When you do your highlighting exercise, you will find that you highlight only a few sentences in all of Paul, because Paul only quotes God verbatim a few times (in Hebrews most of all...that is, assuming that Paul wrote that one). Of course, when Paul speaks of "Scripture", he is not speaking of his own letters. He is speaking of what was Scripture at the time HE was writing, which is to say, the Jewish Scriptures. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-10   22:19:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: Vicomte13 (#79) Interesting, thank you. A lot of traditional Christians who follow the Bible straight and believe in strong spirituality believe ardently in that wife-husband model. I do, too. It feels natural to me but I think there shouldn't be an extreme in power imbalance. Do you follow that model or thinking when it comes to women? I assumed since it was in the Bible, and not canceled out by Jesus' or God's words it was significant - I mean, a lot of people attribute poor female- male sexual and social relations to the extreme liberation that women have recently. but.. you know more than me. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-10   22:49:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: Vicomte13 (#69) There are inconsistencies between what he said in one place and in another. No there aren't unbeliever. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-10   23:09:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: ebonytwix (#80) Do you follow that model or thinking when it comes to women? I assumed since it was in the Bible, and not canceled out by Jesus' or God's words it was significant - I mean, a lot of people attribute poor female- male sexual and social relations to the extreme liberation that women have recently. but.. you know more than me. Women are people. I treat women like people. My wife is my wife. I'm faithful. So is she. In general, we agree on things. When we don't, we usually work it out. If we can't agree, then she is pretty much going to do what she thinks is right, and I do the same, and the issue in tension will certainly be revisited, this time with the experience of two people having done things two different ways. Usually we'll settle on the way that works better. Sometimes, one just gives in to the other because it's easier than fighting. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-11   10:34:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: A K A Stone (#81) No there aren't unbeliever. What does God tell you to with unbelievers? Shake the dust off your soles and move on. Cut off communications. If you are certain I am unbeliever, why are you ignoring the instructions of your God regarding me. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-11   10:37:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com