Oh, give it a break, you with your Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists. You can go back even before Al Capone to note the problems with Chicago, which had nothing to do with Chicago. I would say the Chicago/Hammond Ind., area has more problems with Red Hot Preaching than they ever had with Jews. Want to check out a church that is Christian in that area, I know of at least one, the Christian Fellowship Church. You won't hear bigoted nonsense spewed out there
Ex-Catholic Journal wrote: Discussion: The poor Catholic is placed into an interminable process of confession of sins to achieve continuing relationship with God, the taskmaster and judge. In contrast, those who trust in Christ for salvation are once and for all reconciled to God, and adopted as His children (Rom. 8:15-16). As His children, they are blessed with every spiritual blessing (Eph. 1:3). James says that we are to confess our sins one to another (Jam. 5:16), not to a priest. This confession is to restore us from the temporal consequences of sin, not to get us back into right standing with God.
No, Frank, unless you consider those two schools completely unchristian. Probably what I did forget is,
John 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.---NASB
United States gun violence debate: a look at firearm laws and statistics. from which, "Amid the never-ending debate on guns, here are key facts and figures surrounding the controversial issue in the country where more people per capita are killed by firearms than in any other developed nation." and "Despite the frequency of homicides, suicides actually comprise the largest number of US gun deaths - 21,175 in 2013, compared to 11,208 firearm homicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.---NASB
The unique, important role of women Unofficial Brief ¬∂ The Biblical role of women in the family is also based on the opening chapters of Genesis, The woman is to be submissive to the man. The solid middle is crumbling, more women are having children out of wedlock, because they don't want to give up their financial and personal independence. Unfortunately, too many Christians want to follow worldly ways. We raise to be more like men, and be independent, otherwise not being a Biblical wife. ¬∂ Evangelicals can be complementarian but not egalitarian when considering the Biblical roles of men and women. ¬∂ 1 Peter 3:7 You husbands, in the same way, live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman, as to the weaker vessel, as being also joint heirs of the grace of life; that your prayers may not be hindered. 1 Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. ¬∂ There is not an inequality between husband-wife but there's an order. The man and woman are dependent on each other. This is good in God's eyes. Women are not being put down when they follow the role given to them by God, any more than man is exalted by doing the same. ¬∂ Eph. 5:15 Therefore watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise;
Daniel Wallace wrote: In Isa 14:12, The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ????? as ‚ÄėLucifer.‚Äô This word occurs only here in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ?????. In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows:
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
Notice the fifth word of the text‚ÄĒlucifer. It is not a proper name but the Latin word for ‚Äėmorning star.‚Äô The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19. In Job 11:17, the KJV renders the Hebrew word ???? as ‚Äėmorning‚Äô:
1 Corinthians 6 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.---NASB
John MacArthur wrote: PHIL: You know, in fact as I surveyed just the past twenty years or so, there seem to be waves of this. The previous wave was the Willow Creek model, seeker-sensitivity, and all of that. In some ways, your critique of the Emerging Church Movement sounds very much like your critique of Seeker-sensitivity, Willow Creek and all that. How are these two movements similar, and how are they different?
JOHN: Well, it's the same philosophy. Give people what they want. And so, as people's wants change as the culture defines things, you change with it. I don't think the, for example, I don't think the Willow Creek people at the very beginning would say homosexuality is okay, because when they sort of launched their little niche, the big issue wasn't homosexuality, it was feminism. So they did buy into that.
I have no doubt that Muhammad existed. I think Robert went way out on a limb on this one. Mo, was an illiterate so no one expects he penned anything.
Nicolas D. Kristof wrote: It has long been a staple of Islam that Muslim martyrs will go to paradise and marry 72 black-eyed virgins. But a growing body of rigorous scholarship on the Koran points to a less sensual paradise - and, more important, may offer a step away from fundamentalism and toward a reawakening of the Islamic world.
J. M. Pressley wrote: Thou was essentially extinct in standard English usage by the 1700s. One of the main reasons thou survives at all is Tyndale's translations of the Bible into English in the early sixteenth century. In his translations (for which he was condemned to die at the stake in 1536), Tyndale returned to the simpler convention of Old English, consistently using thou in singular usage and ye in plural usage. As Tyndale's work became the foundation for the King James version of the Bible in 1611, thou was preserved for posterity.
Ironically, however, the association of thou with Biblical verse and classical literature has completely reversed thou's original standing. Thou‚ÄĒwhen it is used at all‚ÄĒis now viewed as the language of solemn ceremony and formality, while our you is the more colloquial of the two terms. This only adds to the modern confusion over usage and intent in Shakespeare.
If memory serves Dr. Combs is still the Dean of New Testament Studies at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, and this is what he had to say, in a short blog,
"As the translators of the KJV said in their Preface, ‚ÄúFor to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?‚ÄĚ And indeed the KJV has been amended numerous times since 1611. For KJV-only advocates to argue that they hold the 1611 KJV as their final authority is at best silly and ill-informed, and at worst, extremely dishonest." final paragraph to, Is the King James Version the Final Authority?.
Hey he said it, and he gives the reasons for it , in his commentary.
Besides everyone knows the NASB is the final authority for English speaking peoples anyway.
Mike of NY.,right! the KJV translators used different words for the same word in serveral places, probably for the sound effect and not for accuracy.
M. J. Fisher, M.Div. wrote: ...According to Muslim history, Mohammed continued to receive messages. He recited them to his followers who wrote them on any objects available such as rocks or bones. These messages came as Mohammed had episodes in which he would seem to have seizures. In the midst of these spells, Mohammed spoke as if Allah were speaking instead of him. He claimed that his spiritual guide, whom he later identified as the angel Gabriel, funneled messages through his poetic revelations. The Qur'an makes it clear that most Christians and Jews of that time believed this behavior to be either insanity or demonic. At first the sayings were short, but later in his life they became quite lengthy....
BM, what I know of the pastor, wife and friend, who just basically did this to the KJV " According to Engelbrite, it is a simple word-for-word update from the King James English. Care has been taken to change nothing doctrinally, but to simply update the spelling and vocabulary. The grammar has not been changed to avoid altering the doctrine." excerpt from, American King James Version So, no doubt almost all of the errors in the KJV are also replicated in this as well, and of course it uses the TR. How good of job he did I have no idea. Probably fairly good, considering he wasn't trying to really turn out a new version of the Bible, and a lot of it could be done with computer software automation.
First of all, one really has to decide if dumping Bible out is like tossing out your net or putting pearls before swine? I thoroughly expect that if this was even a readable text like the NIV (1984) or ESV, 95%+ would still be tossed out, but being in Elizabethan --without any helps to handle Elizabethan I expect to be 100% So, if even individuals are using this for evangelical work, they would want the people they give it to, to better understand it even months after they gave out the Gospel of John.
1st Corinthians 14:7¬†And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8¬†For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9¬†So likewise you, except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for you shall speak into the air. 10¬†There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11¬†Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian, and he that speaks shall be a barbarian to me.---American King James Version
it certainly isn't a liberal version unless you consider everything liberal that isn't in Elizabethan.
BM, I would actually not think that a lot of the verbs would need to be explained. Actually the little one should be, hath means "had" I assume? As I said it being one book I don't expect a lot of words would have to be explained. However just doing the first six chapters Words like latchet, charger, impotent , whereinto, howbeit.
I assume I would find more going through all 21 chapters, but I think they would all fit onto one page though. The name of the prophets, perhaps some place names. The important thing is not if I understand the words, or you understand them. Does a 10th through 12th grader understand those words. You should have somebody like that proofread John who had no exposure to Elizabethan, and see what words they don't understand.
Some people may attempt to read the book of John out of curiosity in the King James Version, but they will soon stop, when they run into the grammar and some of these words. I made a suggestion several years back that they should have used the AKJV, and as much as I dislike Elizabethan form I would suggest that again-- not that I said would think that suggestion to go anywhere.