Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 24642
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-161) not displayed.
.
.
.
#162. To: no gnu taxes (#161)
So you bring up a valid point. What is a "legitimate" church?
The Koine Greek for church is ekklesia. It literally means “a called-out assembly or congregation.” The church is the people and not a building or organization.
So give me an example of a "legitimate" vs. an "illegitimate" church. Who makes such a determination? Who has the authority to enforce such a judgement? This is a fundamental problem with any organized religion. It is all dogma and when I suggest this, it is not limited to any religion anywhere. This is the reason for continuous conflict, for example: Islam vs. Christianity.
A legitimate church would be one that accepts God's word as found in the Bible as truth. An example of an illegitimate church would be one who claims to follow God's word as found in the Bible, but they ignore scriptures. Don't trust it as truth. Or they add thing's to try and make an excuse for something they don't have faith in. An example of an illegitimate church would be Methodists as they pretend to marry faggots.
The organized religion quote. Liberals and commies like saying they are against organized religion. The alternative is unorganized religion which is chaos. There is never any truth because it is chaotic and everyone says they have truth, except it contradicts what someone else thinks is true. So that is just chaotic tickling your ear to feel good.
OK. So lets say you have an established rule for interdenominational differentiation of legitimacy vs. illegitimacy and we all accept it. How is it applied to religions outside of Christianity such as the example I cited in my earlier post?
I am neither a "liberal or a commie" and I abhor organized religion. So, you will have to redefine your statement. Why is that a problem?
"You will know them by their fruits"
+100
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment. When observing the world around myself, I question the entire experience process. Some entity created all of the Universe; that being is unknowable. I call that being the creator. Thanks for answering the questions, honestly.
Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil." How did he get that authority? My wife wanted a book burning party which I did not permit.
How did he get that authority? There are many Bibles that attempt to "modernize" the language of Olde English" KJV. The problem with many of these "modern" translations or interpretations -- crucial meanings are lost, changed, and lest I say it -- subverted. FWIW, I myself use both the KJV as well as the New King James Version -- with help from supplemental King James Bible Study manuals and Commentary, matching up key verses. Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.) http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm
His discernment of authority comes from The Holy Spirit which will NOT compromise on The Word of God.
Isn't that act "non-objective?" Isn't it called "revelation?"
One can never erase human conceptions. Even the Bible goes into discussions of this. If a church genuinely believes in Jesus Christ and promotes the good will that Christ proposed, I can accept it.
no gnu taxes: One can never erase human conceptions. Even the Bible goes into discussions of this. If a church genuinely believes in Jesus Christ and promotes the good will that Christ proposed, I can accept it. You didn't answer any my questions with any capability of direct information or discussion. You glossed over my questions as though I am a student of yours awaiting a paddle board for not adhering to your dogma, which I am not. I will give you one more try: Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?" Answer the question in a direct way.
Because a lot of people have a lot of different ideas and want their own spin on it but does not make t them legitimate just because they say they are Christian. By their fruits you'll know them. As in if they follow the actual teachings. You'll have to discern that yourself.
I did answer your question in a direct way. People will have differences in the details about how Christianity should be practiced, but that doesn't change what Christianity is.
Sure it does. According to Liberator, the Holy Ghost ensures an appropriate interpretation of the Word of God. How? There are what, 500+ Christian faiths all practicing different rites & rituals across the planet with variations of "God's Word?"
How? Through a local snake handler that claims to have the power of the Lord or by adhering to Tammy Faye that claims the same dialogue?
Most differences are about methods of worship, about what you should or should not eat, and other minutiae. The core belief remains the same.
From Christian dogma, irrespective of the religious sects, and when we strip away rites and traditions exactly what is it? Where is the discernment to learn or understand what that core belief is all about? Moreover, I need to understand the reasons for even learning about all this stuff. You see the light or sumthin?
the belief that Christ is the the son of God and defines what is right, and that the holy spirit guides us about this.
Most of the world doesn't adhere do your definition of what is "right." In fact, Judaism abhors your idea. Also, Islam does, as well. Including Christianity and the hundreds of variations, thereof, these three major religions form the Abraham religious followers composed of BILLIONS of followers would reject your opinion in a heartbeat. Within internal Christian concepts and denominations varying about standards of THEIR interpretations has little to do with me. Your opinion is subjective and there is NO objective evidence at all.
The MEV isn't a bad bible at all. It uses modern vernacular, follows generally the text of the KJV, uses formal equivalence to translate just as the KJV did. As a modern version of KJV, it's not bad at all. I can't imagine how anyone calls it "of the Devil". The Elizabethan English of the KJV is not for everyone. And reading the Bible in stilted English from hundreds of years ago does not contribute to understanding what you are reading.
http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/mev/satanic_counterfeit.htm I inspected that page and consider it over the top. They spend a lot of time complaining about the nuances of copyright law (which apply even more to copyrights being renewed for versions like NIV and others than to the MEV). MEV was only complete in 2013. So they don't need to worry much about renewing a copyright to create a new derivative copyright to protect their profits for some years yet. Again, NIV and other big publishers routinely make rather shocking revisions to their current versions just to keep getting new derivative copyrights issued. As to the samples of text comparisons between KJV and MEV, their complaints seem pretty minor if that is the extent of how much the MEV has wandered, ever so slightly, away from the KJV's intended meanings. buckeroo, don't dump your MEV. It's fine. So are a handful of other similar modern KJV paraphrases that are similar to it. Nothing seriously wrong with any of them even if you can find a verse or two to quibble over. The vast majority of text renderings are accurate enough.
Most of the world The path is straight and narrow, not crooked and wide. In fact, Judaism abhors your idea. Really, since when? Most don't even really practice Judaism. Most are are just secularists who call themselves Jews. OTOH, Christians accept and embrace Jews with the hope they will come to Christ. Islam does, as well. They hate everybody. And they are not shy about showing it.
Thanks TC. I need to finish that earlier post concerning the preacher suggesting ... "it [MEV] was of the Devil." A few weeks later, I reached for the MEV and notice the cover was completely changed. Instead, I have this book called, START!:
no gnu taxes: Really, since when? Most don't even really practice Judaism. Most are are just secularists who call themselves Jews. OTOH, Christians accept and embrace Jews with the hope they will come to Christ. You need help, no gnu taxes ... here is a recommendation: get off the Internet and go to a local chapter of the AA. What a STUPID comment you posted.
You should tell your wife to return your bible. Remind her that stealing bibles is not a godly activity even if you prefer to see someone reading a version you like better. The START! bible is a plain-jane NKJV (New King James Version). Some churches buy these for $6-$8 for pew bibles. Don't be fooled by the name of it though or its implied claim to be a modernized KVJ because it is far from it. This is not a bible that was translated according to the translation principles of the KJV translators and it was not translated from the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament and using Textus Receptus Greek translations in the New Testament. It relies for scholarship on the Alexandrian manuscripts, primarily Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Not on the Textus Receptus which we know were used from an early period throughout the Roman empire and faithfully preserved by the Eastern Orthodox (who never modernize anything and seem to think the very idea is suspect). I'd say you were better off with the MEV. Certainly, I would take that one over an NKJV. The funny thing is that, while the NKJV does take liberties with certain phrases in various passages, when you get down to those old verses that the lifelong bible students quote from memory, the NKJV copies the exact phrasing of the KJV. Even if those phrases contradict what is found in their preferred translation from the Alexandrian texts. They know people want those KJV text renderings and so they just use them so they can "KJV up" their Alexandrian Trojan horse bible. An interesting little fact is that the KJV actually echoed the commonly used phrases of key verses according to the older Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible and was not completely faithful to their manuscript sources either, just as I am complaining that NKJV did it. Kind humorous but I can't say that it changes the entire meaning of the bible. We're mostly quibbling over some very minor changes overall. But in some verses, you do see differences, like calling Jesus "the servant of God" instead of calling him "the Son of God". That's a very big difference. This guy Laurie is just a successful evangelical preacher of no particular scholarly ability. He helped write the study notes of the START! NKJV bible and a few other similar bibles as well. BTW, buck, you could produce the Buckeroo Bible the same way. Contact the NKJV publishers (Nelson, I think) and get a quote for how much they will charge you to license their NKJV text from them. Then you just download the text from them, insert notes and comments wherever you like, upload it to a publisher like Amazon for publishing small quantities of books. You could probably produce nice bibles of your own for under $40 in a decent binding. Maybe under $25. Think of it: The King Buckeroo Authorized Version. KBAV. It would be epic. And it isn't just the NKJV that is a bible-for-rent. NIV and others will do the same. OTOH, the KJV was protected only by royal patent and it has never been enforced even in England so you could produce your own Buckeroo KJV bible and no one could say a word about it legally. Those bibles do not use the same manuscripts to translate from, even if NKJV uses phrasing to try to fool people about what they've done. And what does your website that posts against the MEV have to say about the NKJV? They hate it much more than they hate the MEV. JesusIsPrecious: Beware: The New King James Bible is Translated From the Corrupted Alexandrian Manuscripts!, 2014, updated 2016
Thanks. But I already have a TJ Bible. I don't need any competition. [and my wife knows about it.]
A bit more to clarify: According to the preface of the NKJV, the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, with frequent comparisons made to the Ben Hayyim edition of the Mikraot Gedolot published by Bomberg in 1524–25, which was used for the King James Version. Both the Old Testament text of the NKJV and that of the KJV come from the ben Chayyim text. However, the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica used by the NKJV uses an earlier manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the KJV. The New King James Version also uses the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") for the New Testament, just as the original King James Version had used. As explained in the preface, notes in the center column acknowledge variations from Novum Testamentum Graece (designated NU after Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies) and the Majority Text (designated M). The TR is used for the NT but there are footnotes where the NU or M (Majority Text) are not in agreement or omitted. The Majority Text (M) is a variant of the Byzantine text. Interesting the Eastern Orthodox used the M text for years for their English speaking and reading churches. There is only one Bible out there (if you don't count Greek interlinear version) and it is a non copywrite version called the World English Bible (WEB). I've used it for quotes at other sites which are kind of skiddish on using quotes from the copyrighted Bibles online. The EOs used this version as a base for their 2013 Orthodox New Testament in English. However, heavily introduced their Patriarchal Text of 1904. As English translations go for the NT this one is clearly the most Byzantine of them all. TR had gaps or very few manuscripts to work off of for the KJV. The Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament: Based on the Official Text of the Greek Orthodox Church is not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox Study Bible which is just another NKJV rip off (legally of course) with a few subtle insults in the footnotes about the TR. This is the cover of the Patriarchal edition: Site: As you can see I had to use Wikipedia to get a good explanation. None of the Orthodox sites have info. Amazon sells it. I guess the Orthodox are lousy at Bible sales like us Protestant snake handlers. If you go to Orthodox blogs it seems their faithful don't even know this NT version exists. Loads of compliments though for the EOB Study Bible which as mentioned is just the NKJV with some fancy icons on the cover. Well I have a copy and when Pentecostals start arguing over English words I break out the lexicon and this Bible for NT passages.
What are you looking for in a Bible? There are literal word for word Bibles, and easier to read (flow of the text) type Bibles. Concept for concept as opposed to word for word. You can look at various versions and compare side by side by using Biblegateway.com When I first went through the Bible I used an easy to read version. Today that version is called the New Living Translation. I use this version for family Bible Study. The two approaches to Bible translations are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. There are different translation methodologies for how to best render the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English. Some Bible versions translate as literally (word-for-word) as possible, commonly known as formal equivalence. Some Bible versions translate less literally, in more of a thought-for-thought method, commonly known as dynamic equivalence. All of the different English Bible versions are at different points of the formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence spectrum. The New American Standard Bible and the King James Version would be to the far end of the formal equivalence side, while paraphrases such as The Living Bible and The Message would be to the far end of the dynamic equivalence side. The advantage of formal equivalence is that it minimizes the translator inserting his/her own interpretations into the passages. The disadvantage of formal equivalence is that it often produces a translation so woodenly literal that it is not easily readable/understandable. The advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it usually produces a more readable/understandable Bible version. The disadvantage of dynamic equivalence is that it sometimes results in “this is what I think it means” instead of “this is what it says.” Neither method is right or wrong. The best Bible version is likely produced through a balance of the two methodologies. Within the two categories there are variations. For example some dynamic equivalence versions are paraphrasing entire passages. More detailed explanation here:
Do you really think most people who call themselves Jews actually practice Judaism? If you do, maybe you are the one who needs to be in detox. It has been estimated that up to 70 per cent of Jews in Israel are "secular Jews", which is generally understood to mean that they do not practice Judaism. http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_Jews_do_not_practice_Judaism
This is also good: Almost 40 years ago, when I started working in the Jewish community as a 19 year-old college sophomore, I could never have imagined that Christians, with whom I was surrounded growing up, would support Israel with the same passion that I have supported Israel since I was a teenager. I would never have imagined speaking at Christian events to honor Israel, traveling to Israel with Christians or learning that there are “Christian Zionists”. So, when I first encountered Christians who loved Israel and the Jewish people, I was taken aback until the conversation began. Then and now, they said to me we love Israel and the Jewish people because in the first book of the Bible, it says: I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. https://blog.chron.com/aroundthejewishworld/2012/07/why-do-christians-support-israel-2/
https://blog.chron.com/aroundthejewishworld/2012/07/why-do-christians-support-israel-2/ Yes indeed, all nations have been blessed through the Jews when Jesus Christ came, as He said: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you - I am he.”
If they prefer the Alexandrian text type, then stick with it. Why promote the Alexandrian text type constantly via all the footnotes if you don't believe it is superior? As for sales of modern EO bibles in English, I think you might miss the point. The EO priests and most knowledgable laypersons will resort to reading the accepted Greek text themselves. They won't just run to English translation the way the rest of us do. This would be as odd as some Roman Catholics disputing Thomas of Aquinas or other Scholastics without reading the Latin version of their writings. The textual variants of all these various manuscripts really is too large a topic to sort through on some chat board.
No. However there are several major variations of Judaism similar to Christianity. Similar to Christianity but not so much as Islam.
Comments (202 - 211) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI see no churches (legitimate) that saw any Christian as a seed of the devil.
#163. To: buckeroo (#162)
What is a "legitimate" church?
#164. To: redleghunter (#163)
#165. To: buckeroo (#164)
(Edited)
So give me an example of a "legitimate" vs. an "illegitimate" church. Who makes such a determination?
#166. To: buckeroo (#164)
This is a fundamental problem with any organized religion.
#167. To: A K A Stone (#165)
#168. To: A K A Stone (#166)
Liberals and commies like saying they are against organized religion.
The alternative is unorganized religion which is chaos.
#169. To: buckeroo (#162)
#170. To: no gnu taxes (#169)
"You will know them by their fruits"
#171. To: buckeroo (#160)
Which Bible are you referring to?
#172. To: no gnu taxes (#169)
"You will know them by their fruits"
#173. To: Liberator (#171)
Let's just go with the King James Version for the moment.
#174. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#173)
So, I purchased a variation of the Bible called, "Modern English Version" a few years ago which attempts to use contemporary English as a way of describing the scripture based on King James Version. My wife took the Bible to the local minister for evaluation and he said, "it was of the Devil."
#175. To: buckeroo (#173)
How did he [the Minister] get that authority?
#176. To: Liberator (#175)
His discernment of authority comes from The Holy Spirit which will NOT compromise on The Word of God.
#177. To: buckeroo (#172)
Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
#178. To: buckeroo (#167)
(Edited)
#179. To: no gnu taxes (#177)
buckeroo: Is that why there are so many Christian denominations? Is it because there are "so many fruits?"
#180. To: buckeroo (#179)
#181. To: buckeroo (#179)
#182. To: no gnu taxes, Liberator (#181)
I did answer your question in a direct way. People will have differences in the details about how Christianity should be practiced, but that doesn't change what Christianity is.
#183. To: A K A Stone (#180)
(Edited)
You'll have to discern that yourself.
#184. To: buckeroo (#182)
#185. To: no gnu taxes (#184)
The core belief remains the same.
#186. To: buckeroo (#185)
From Christian dogma, irrespective of the religious sects, and when we strip away rites and traditions exactly what is it?
#187. To: no gnu taxes (#186)
the belief that Christ is the the son of God and defines what is right, and that the holy spirit guides us about this.
#188. To: buckeroo, Liberator (#173)
#189. To: Liberator, buckeroo (#174)
Buck, I did a quick check up on the "Modern English Version" -- at this particular website link, they seem to concur with your wife's Minister (you are blessed to have a wife who seeks the truth from the Word.) They compare and contrast some verse examples, gauging interpretational changes in meaning that do matter. (I haven't time to examine it at the moment; Perhaps Red can also weigh in on this issue.)
#190. To: buckeroo (#187)
#191. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#189)
... don't dump your MEV. It's fine. So are a handful of other similar modern KJV paraphrases that are similar to it. Nothing seriously wrong with any of them even if you can find a verse or two to quibble over. The vast majority of text renderings are accurate enough.
#192. To: no gnu taxes (#190)
buckeroo: In fact, Judaism abhors your idea [following Christ]
#193. To: buckeroo, Liberator, redleghunter (#191)
(Edited)
I need to finish that earlier post concerning the preacher suggesting ... "it [MEV] was of the Devil." A few weeks later, I reached for the MEV and notice the cover was completely changed. Instead, I have this book called, START!:
It is too late for me to act on your recommendation as I have a new version. My wife's minister is Greg Laurie, the guy who is shown in the video, just above. This world is often very weird; if you catch my drift, about salespeople.
Liberator: FWIW, I myself use both the KJV as well as the New King James Version -- with help from supplemental King James Bible Study manuals and Commentary, matching up key verses.
#194. To: Tooconservative (#193)
(Edited)
Think of it: The King Buckeroo Authorized Version. KBAV. It would be epic.
#195. To: Tooconservative, buckeroo, Liberator (#193)
#196. To: buckeroo, Too Conservative, Liberator (#194)
(Edited)
#197. To: buckeroo (#192)
#198. To: buckeroo (#192)
#199. To: no gnu taxes, VxH, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete (#198)
I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
#200. To: redleghunter (#195)
The TR is used for the NT but there are footnotes where the NU or M (Majority Text) are not in agreement or omitted.
#201. To: no gnu taxes (#197)
Do you really think most people who call themselves Jews actually practice Judaism?
It has been estimated that up to 70 per cent of Jews in Israel are "secular Jews", which is generally understood to mean that they do not practice Judaism.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]