Frank for you to say, "... a woman should not be leading the way in our society, whether it is a Christian endeavor or a secular endeavor. When they are standing in the forefront, then our minds translates that into normality" is BOLD! What then should women do since men have abandoned their posts? Frank, you also stated "Lastly and what will appear to be a contradiction. There is nothing we can do to stop this homosexual agenda. Once God cursed our societies with this abomination, it remains cursed. But, I pray that I donâ€™t do anything to further this agenda"
Then are you saying that we should not pray? Are you saying that God did not pour out the spirit of repentance upon Ninevah?
If prayer will not reverse things, then we all need to eat, drink, and be merry since this is as good as it gets.
Christopher000 wrote: Hi Observer, I thought you were gone again. Glad to see you commenting and hope you stick around. I respect those who say what's on their mind, and even moreso, those who are strong enough to come out and defend others. Always a big plus in my book.
Good morning brother.
Was on a short vacation, but back again.
How are you doing? Write me and let me know how I can pray for you best.
Isn't it amazing what utter trash people can spew authoritatively with just a little knowledge, or a great number of internet links?!
Frank wrote: I believe that the KJ bible is the most accurate translation in the world today and that all other translations are modern and therefore should be rejected or certainly not used in lieu of the KJV. ...... Yes, the above was meant to be purely sarcasm.
The sarcasm is duly noted, as is the misrepresentation in your post. I must have missed the similar sarcastic post on the multi version only approach. You know the new kid on the block with his pseudo-science who wishes to displace the majority witness with a handful of lately discovered texts which the pseudo-science experts assure us are more ancient and therefore more reliable! How do they know? Because they tell us so! Strange that despite all their efforts not one of them can agree on the correct text, and they've been at it over 130 years!
B. McCausland wrote: Thank you Observer About Elizabethan English .....
I grant all you say in relation to the spiritual understanding of God's Word. But it does not absolve us from the difficulties of choosing a reliable Bible.
In relation to the KJV, I would add that in the translation of the KJV we have not only formal equivalence which is important if we believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Word of God, but also a grandeur, a loftiness, a purity which instills in us a sense of awe as we handle God's word which is completely lacking in all modern versions. And then there is the rhythm and cadence which makes the text a joy to read and memorize.
But beyond all this is the fact that it is based on the ecclesiastical text which ruled the Christian world for 1880 years before the corrupt texts were adopted by unbelieving liberal rationalists who wish to reduce the Bible to a human production.
Ignoring the liberal parrot on this thread, I would like to address the brethren and sisters on here who are concerned about the Bible versions issue.
As we know the underlying text was displaced by a critical eclectic text, based on known perversions, which assumes that men's intellects are essential to arriving at the autographs which no person alive now has seen.
This change was no minor deviation, because it represents the assault of unbelieving rationalism (which arose in Germany) on the Word of God.
The deviation impacts major areas of doctrine, including the attempted redefinition of the preservation of Scripture!
May I suggest that we dialogue on the issues, and not be diverted by the promoter of perversions?
more questions wrote: seeing that no one is disputing that Scripture is inspired and only Jim thinks the KJV is not the Word of God,you are obviously avoiding my questions. Last chance, in case you missed them previously What is the perfect Bible in Spanish? Italian? Porteguese? Russian? Mandarin? French? Dutch? German? or does God only preserve perfect Bibles in English? So when the 3rd edition of the KJV 1611 said the 7th commandment was thou shalt commit adultery, did God drop the ball? When the KJV translators put alternate renderings in the margins, was it because God was confused? How come it took 16 centuries for God to come up with a perfect Bible? Is the Vulgate the perfect Bible in Latin? Was Tyndale's translation perfect? IF so, why did we need another English Bible? If a person is saved under the preaching of a pastor using the NIV is their new birth genuine?
You act stupid, you get treated like a stupid. I'd say that was fair.
You're attacking the KJVO theory, which I don't see being defended here.
You're clearly a Jim mark 2, which would also make you a troll.
Stevenr wrote: Observer; Yes, you must consider the difference between myself and SteveR, whom I believe is a Catholic... With a generally perverse mouth... er, keyboard? Anyway, I am not in Special Education, although I feel like it at times. I work primarily with youth offenders, and I teach Sociology/Criminal Justice for a community college; I am also an independent, fundamental Baptist, (though that title will draw some fun conmentary...) and have been involved in the Prison Ministry for over 20 years. So there are several differences between myself and the man from Mt. Zion, which is why I specify Missouri.
You need not worry bro I can smell a troll at a million miles!
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, it hasn't Observer, though Dr. Farsted makes a much better argument for using the Textus Receptus then you do, Preface to the NKJV and some overlooked matters in the Preface, from a person who is friendly to the New King James Version. .....
Oh man, Jim you're just such an unthinking troll!
Here's what Farstad writes in the link you provided:
"....In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament."
That was a while back. Now the movement to ditch the W-H texts is gaining momentum!
Try reading your link next time before spouting forth more ignorant statements!!
One day you will hold a Modernized Authorized Version in your hands based on the Byzantine texts and translated on the basis of the formal equivalence principle. Then you will have God's Word in modern English! Until then I'd suggest you stick with the KJV!
Mike wrote: Since you voted for Obama, and don't care where he was born, you have no stance to argue in favor of sending Cruz to Canada. What others said is irrelevant to what you would like to see happen.
Consistency of treatment is not something Jim subscribes to, in politics or theology.