Margaret sanger (founder of planned parenthood) did say her plan was to "annihilate the negro population" she wanted only the rich and smart to reproduce. Goof for Kanye for figuring it out and spreading the word!
God invented the institution of government, marriage, church. Pastors should be able to share an opinion especially if he is trying to inform the congregation on candidates that support Israel, pro life, and other Biblical related "politics". Bottom line is abortion isnt politics, blessing Israel isnt politics. These are Biblical topics that should be taught.
Philippians 1:18- ‚ÄúWhat then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.‚ÄĚ
It‚Äôs not our job to judge this mans heart but to rejoice that Christ is being preached, changes are happening. The Lord works on us all in different ways and at different levels. May the name of Jesus be glorified.
Just a reminder that the ‚ÄúPalestine‚Äôs‚ÄĚ were originally Cretes (Europeans) who invaded the Jewish, God given land. Later the Arabs invaded them (Ottoman Empire) nothing Holy from Islam was ever in Israel. The only reason they want that land is to destroy the Jew. And the only reason the region is named Palestine is because some evil leader so hated the Jews, just to be evil he named their land after the Jews known enemy the ‚Äúphilistines‚ÄĚ aka today‚Äôs Palestine‚ÄĚ if history interests you check out this link.. https://www.joncourson.com/playteaching/T438/teachingaudio
Great Sermon! Great Sermon. One can feel the anguish in the speaker's voice as he is broken over sin in the church and the need for repentance. Unfortunately many have lost their first love and pride keeps them from repenting.
David Preston wrote: you failed to understand the point the translators were trying make. The Holy Ghost is the one who wanted words like "Baptism" and "Church" in the Bible.
Simply not true. But if your argument is now down to playing such cards as "the Holy Ghost says so" in rejecting genuine translation of the Holy Spirit breathed original Greek I see that rational, biblical, sober discussion is not going to proceed further.
David Preston wrote: You are reducing the KJB to a man made book.
Straw man. Rather, you have demonstrated that you are exalting the translation to a status that the translators themselves never gave it, or desired to give it. These men knew their biases, and they had the integrity to declare them. An integrity that is much lacking today. They remained good men and sound scholars.
John UK wrote: Let me reiterate. Let us suppose that the New King James Version was merely a modernising of the KJV language. Would it not have been a modern version? Well, if not, call it something else, but surely it would have been the inerrant and inspired word of the Living God? Unfortunately, it did not do that, but was subtly changed in several places.
I still hold to the TBS position, that the KJV is the most accurate translation in English that we have today. But they are open-minded enough to accept that one day, there may be a more easily understood revision of it. Unlikely, but possible!
Agree with both paragraphs. Sadly, I do not think a reliable updated translation will be made unless TBS themselves do it.
Personally, I would also suggest that the influence of both Erasmus' losing wager, and the fake Greek manuscript that was conjured up to win the wager, be removed.
David Preston wrote: "most Bible believers considered the 1611 translation as inferior to previous work due to the translators' self-declared biases." Who? I need specifics.
In general, the Puritans, who originally fell for James VI and I's sop of an idea of a new translation. Specifically, the entire community of Plimouth Plantation, for example.
David Preston wrote: ... printer issues...
Agreed.However, it is not me that is asserting this to be "the preserved, infallible word of God for the English speaking people."In your purview, a revision is a revision and it cannot then be infallible.
David Preston wrote: The translators ... displayed their humility.
Conformity was the imposed political brief. However, their humility was not displayed in this, but rather their political subservience and bias: "Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: ... "
David Preston wrote: By the way ...
You raise the issue, so you tell me your answer and why it is important to you please.
David Preston wrote: Faust makes it very clear ... was the norm ... all other Bibles after it... were viewed as corruptions.
I have visited ... I know what I am talking about ...
Thanks for telling me what he thinks and what you think. I will admit I prefer the subjective language you are using than the unjustifiable dogmatic rants more typical of KJVOnlyism.
Of course the translators of the Authorised Version did not share the view that their translation work could not be improved and of course it underwent numerous revisions; and most Bible believers considered the 1611 translation as inferior to previous work due to the translators' self-declared biases.
David Preston wrote: "bible student" Riplinger and Ruckman have and will do more good for the body of Christ than
More subjectivism. By what standard do you judge 'good.' As noted before your claimed 'blessing' is not the standard of truth.
If you want another subjective assessment of the "good" they have done consider:
John UK wrote: Besides, KJV-Onlyism is a dangerous and isolating cult, leading many astray, and separating them from the rest of the body of Christ.
I share John's observation. But don't take either my word for it or his. Examine the underlying substance for yourself.
btw - I do not recall the name of Joey Faust, but if you can demonstrate that his work is of a fundamentally different character than that of Riplinger and Ruckman I would consider it. Context seems to indicate though that you see the work as along much the same lines, please confirm.
John UK wrote: Bible student, if I may butt in a minute. If you see those folks as false teachers, with good reason, it may help David if you would share with him your conclusions as to why you consider them thus. He has been reading them, and has been blessed by doing so. For someone to just come out and denounce them as false teachers without giving a good reason means nothing. After all, who are YOU? No-one knows except yourself. So I would heartily recommend, if you wish to edify the body of Christ, that you take it a stage further and explain what sort of heresies these folks promote. And even then, it may take a while for the information to sink in, so you must needs have patience and wait on the Lord, for his timing, and his revelation to any that have been affected by wrongful doctrine. Just sayin'.
Agree with all the above.
However, the errors of KJVOnlyism have been regurgitated on here more than enough, as you know. The evidence is available if SF and David are interested.
Just because I don't have the time to invest in yet another futile bible versions discussion does not mean that there should free rein to promote such garbage unchallenged.