DanUSA wrote: â€¦if the KJV is indeed the pure word of God â€“ no errors, then logic followsâ€¦â€ť ...
DanUSA, thanks for your answer. I must say that in all due respect, I see your thinking is indeed flawed. I have no intention of being perceived of spending my time speaking in a contrary way to a version that I have read from cover to cover for the better part of forty years. It is my source of meditation and memorization and of necessity then basis for my prayers. Your own view of preservation goes down the tube if God didn't do anything for nearly 1600 years. I never mentioned the original manuscripts. Your logic can be shown to be severely inaccurate but again have no wish to be perceived as taking sides against the King James Version. From intensive talks with missionaries I know you don't understand Bible translation, the work that they do on foreign soil to reach the heathen for Christ. You wouldn't even think they way you do if you had grown up in South America, Eastern Europe, the Middle of Far East. So, out of respect for the KJV, I will leave the discussion here, thanks for your input.
Neil wrote: Not everything on the Internet is sound, so you beg the question in calling it "information." The term "Puritan" dates to the 16th-century English Reformation; it's an anachronism, or at least misleading, to use it in any other context. And there was much diversity of doctrine among Puritans; some were Anglicans, some were Dissenting Reformed, while others were Arminian. There were also more bizare types like Quakers, Levellers, & Fifth Monarchy Men. By now I am used to Christian writers, who are supposed to tell the truth, disseminating blatant fibs about church history. As for example, "The Trail of Blood," a particularly egregious Baptist example (and I'm a Credobaptist). By & large, secular historians do a better job, though they may spin it negatively. As I said, Anabaptists do not date themselves prior to the Reformation. Here at least they have some integrity (though much of their doctrine I consider unbiblical).
Anabaptist would mean to baptize again so, immersionist go back to when the church started and then they didn't have to rebaptize until people started falsely practicing infant baptism. They LONG preceded the reformation.
Jim, not sure if you read the links I provided, Obama has already enacted the Buffet rule, they top 1% is ABOVE 30%. The CEO for the NYT makes 10.5 million but has his newspaper complain about what other CEO's make????
You want more taxes paid by wealthy
"The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent ROSE sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16"
Bibles of different languages that are based solely on the KJV are ok.
Thanks for you response DanUSA, appreciate your zeal for the truth and love for the KJV.
I am trouble by your statement that Bibles in other languages need to be based on the KJV. (if that is not what you are saying my bad) The KJV was not based upon the KJV, it was a translation from the original languages. (they even had side notes with alternative translations) Bibles to be accurate need to be translated from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek not the KJV. I am not even sure what you mean by cultural relevancy problems, you don't think the English words had specific meaning within the culture of England in the early 1600's? For instance the word let meant to hinder (now it means allow), that would be translated differently in another language to convey the meaning of the original languages.
Christopher000 wrote: Seems like things have to be repeated over and over for you, GS, because you lack comprehension abilities. Anyone who isn't mentally deranged knows that the top button on a mens dress shirt isn't even suppose to be used because the top button on a men's dress shirt is a spare in the event that any other button on the men's dress shirt falls off. Anyone who's not out of their mind and knows anything about men's dress shirts knows that the top button on a men's dress shirt isn't there to button the top of the men's dress shirt, but is there in the event that a button ever falls off of the men's dress shirt. Why would anyone who knows anything about men's dress shirts ever button the top button thats only there for a spare? : ) Sorry...no harm intended.
downright scary, Christopher can read John Y thoughts and articulate them quite well. Now, if only he can reverse the process and get John Y to grasp his understanding of Catholicism.
Wait, how could this happen during the Obama administration?? I thought he was going to help the middle class. The middle class and poor are suffering under the current administration and Jimbo posted a link to the article??? btw SteveR, excellent point
DanUSA I don't understand why you made a comment about haters of the KJV as the only disdain for it came from just one commentator and the article is not anti-KJV. Also, there are plenty of people with Bibles in languages other than English are you saying those people don't have the Scriptures?
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS, under the video, click transcript then print transcript, What the 1% Donâ€™t Want You to Know there's a transcript button right beneath the video screen. excerpts there from,
Mike of N.Y., the Forbes article wasn't entirely complimentary of Buffett, nothing going to happen with Keystone until after Nov.!
The false assumption of the point being made is there is a limited amount of money, just for say illustrative purposes it is a billion dollars. Mr. Krugman is contending that if give a 9% raise to CEO's so that they make 13.9 million, then every else "down the food chain" so to speak, no longer has access to that money, so you are taking from the less fortunate and giving more to the fortunate. Therefore pay going to one person takes away from pay that could go to another person. That would be the same thinking that says if you give a job to a foreigner you take it away from an American because there are just a fixed amount of jobs in the world. We would have gone broke long ago if that was true. So, again, as usual Mr. Moyer is wrong.
Why does Jim keep referring to a group founded and funded by democrats??? You'd think he would shy away from that part of the story.
Mike and penned have great points, if I can define a so called hate crime, then I can also be let off for killing someone because I thought of it as an act of mercy. Do the mothers who kill their unborn infants LOVE their babies? Yet we don't refer to abortion as a hate crime. If I steal your material possessions to support my drug habit, am I being loving? Not to you, but what if I share my drugs with my significant other, they might view it as loving. You see what happens when you try and define something that is subjective and cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This guy probably thought he was doing the world a favor, so it was an act of compassion for humanity. Are the people any less dead because you killed them from intense hatred or random violence? A crime, is a crime, is a crime.
Trying to remember the ladies Jim mentioned being in a position to influence policies that affect the nation,ahhhh nope, they don't issue policies by executive fiat, hmmm maybe Catholics pedophiles with the same power, nope not them either.
But let us hold to the standard suggested by Jim from Lincoln. If you criticize those of the political party you dislike for their LGBT support, as done in this post, but you don't criticize the person at the top of the party you support who is in the White House for their support of LGBT causes, then according to this post you are a hypocrite.
"According to CBO, the top 1 percent of income earnersâ€”families earning more than $613,700 in 2010 (the latest year of available data)â€”paid an effective tax rate on all federal taxes of 29.4 percent. They paid 24.2 percent of all federal taxes while earning just under 15 percent of all income.
The middle classâ€”families earning more than $71,400â€”paid an effective tax rate of 11.5 percent. They paid 9.1 percent of all federal taxes and earned 14.2 percent of income.
CBO also estimated that the top 1 percent will pay 33.6 percent of their income in federal taxes this yearâ€”well above what the Buffett Rule calls for.
As a result of the Presidentâ€™s policies, the top 1 percent of income earners will pay four percentage points more of their income in federal taxes in 2013 than they did in 2010â€”before the President signed his long-sought tax hikes into law. That is a 14 percent increase in their effective tax rate."
Proving again, don't go by what Bill Moyers says if you want the facts.
This is just more business persecution by the Obama administration. They been doing it for 5 years now. So, great question why isn't anyone opposing Buffet Rule? Maybe they think the economy needs to suffer some more.
John Yurich USA wrote: What is the point of wearing a tie with the top button on the shirt buttoned when a tie can be worn with the top button not buttoned? I have a shirt that is one size larger but I still wear a tie with the top button not buttoned as I don't see the need of buttoning the top button to wear a tie.
Well, I wear dress pants, dress shirt with top button buttoned (try and make sure neck size on shirts is large enough, looks neater IMO) and a casual tie (although it is usually doesn't make the trip back for the Sunday night service, maybe I should call it a carnal tie )
John Yurich USA wrote: When I wear a tie to church I wear the tie with a casual shirt. The casual shirt is not tucked in and the tie is worn with the top button of the shirt not buttoned up. It is stupid to wear a tie with the top button on the shirt buttoned up as it is so uncomfortable with the top button of the shirt buttoned up.
If I can oversimplify an explanation about gas prices. Gas stations don't make a ton of money on a gallon of gas, maybe 2 to 3 cents. When the gas price goes up they need to get additional money to pay for the higher price delivery after the current supply is gone. Thus you see them raising prices almost right away. When the barrel of oil goes down, now you have to remember they only make 2 to 3 cents a gallon profit. So, if they lower it right way they are selling gas at a loss.
Also, if you need to which direction to believe, if Bill Moyers says something, pretty much the opposite is true