Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

As far as I know, none of them have done the mandatory forty days in the
desert. They can sure ORDER others to do it though.

We will cover the Burning Bush phenomena during next week's show. Please
stay tuned.




I think if you look it up, Moses and the Chosen wandered for 40 YEARS in the
desert..

Yes, but these 'messiah' types should emulate Jesus, who was there for
forty days. The problem with most faux prophets seems to be that they
DON'T need to be weakened by forty days of deprivation before being
tempted and succumbing to temptation. Heck..some of them may not even
need forty MINUTES.

....as my mind slowly drifts back to someone with running mascara, really
bad make up, a cheatin' husband and a huge bank account...


mike (needing a new elevator in the North Prayer Tower) II

T. Early wrote:

I may have missed some of your posts (actually, a lot of your posts)
but I've only seen you use the direct line to God lie about Bush twice
and Ashcroft once. This concerns me. Please get out your Democratic
National Committee Handbook (that's it, the one with the red cover)
and turn to the chapter mandating constant regurgitation of loony left
lies. I think it's called "Convincing the Stupid." I'm pretty sure,
under the sub-chapter "Making the Idiots Believe Bush was AWOL," the
handbook actually recommends constant repetition in direct proportion
to the lack of evidence supporting the lie. You need to get to work
repeating this "direct line to God" lie. A lot.



A good a start as any:

http://www.punditwalla.com/Pat%20Rob...o%20God.htm l

http://snipurl.com/9oh4



mike

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:49 pm, CW no adddress@spam free.com posted to
rec.radio.shortwave: %MM

I haven't herd ANY religious freak yet that truly made sense. What do you
expect?

You don't religion to be crazy, but it sure helps!

Many people have a religion though they don't recognize it as such.
Could we call it the "Non Religious Religion" (NRR) ? ;-)

uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:49 pm, CW no adddress@spam free.com posted to
rec.radio.shortwave: %MM


I haven't herd ANY religious freak yet that truly made sense. What do you
expect?


You don't religion to be crazy, but it sure helps!

"m II" wrote in message
news:0kpad.16453$663.14019@edtnps84...
T. Early wrote:

I may have missed some of your posts (actually, a lot of your
posts)
but I've only seen you use the direct line to God lie about Bush
twice
and Ashcroft once. This concerns me. Please get out your
Democratic
National Committee Handbook (that's it, the one with the red
cover)
and turn to the chapter mandating constant regurgitation of loony
left
lies. I think it's called "Convincing the Stupid." I'm pretty
sure,
under the sub-chapter "Making the Idiots Believe Bush was AWOL,"
the
handbook actually recommends constant repetition in direct
proportion
to the lack of evidence supporting the lie. You need to get to
work
repeating this "direct line to God" lie. A lot.



A good a start as any:


http://www.punditwalla.com/Pat%20Rob...o%20God.htm l

http://snipurl.com/9oh4


Reverend Robertson is entitled to his often unusual opinions, I
suppose. But I'm still waiting for the kid who made the original post
to step up with a link. Based on past experience, I'll be waiting a
very long time.

Why would God need to "control" other versions when He His word is here in
the KJV ? He promised to preserve His word and He did just that. He did not
promise, nor is it necessary to ensure that all versions are pure.

Further, the Spirit of God enables understanding. Spirit to Spirit. Endless
translations are only needed by those who are NOT enabled by the Holy Spirit
to understand, and who pursue an intellectual knowledge of scripture for
their own glory.

1 Corinthians 2:11-14 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but
the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but
the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual
things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.

The KJV is easily understood when one has been enabled by our Lord to
understand.

How do you become enabled? By repenting of your sins, dropping to your
knees and asking forgiveness for them, agreeing to live your life God's way
regardless of the direction that may be (humility), and accepting the
wonderful gift of Jesus Christ that was provided by God for your salvation.
One sacrifice for all times. Amen


--
Dave,
Icom 746pro, Drake R-8, Grundig YB-400pe
Icom V-8000, Yaesu VX5R, Uniden
780xlt, R.S. Pro 95, R.S. Pro 2066
G.E. SR3



"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
I was listening to 6.890 at 23:00 UT / 19:00 ET and heard a minister I
hadn't heard before.

It seems, according to him, that there's one thing God couldn't do. He
was able to perfectly control the translations of His word up to and
including the King James Version of 1611; but to hear a lot of the KJ Only
enthusiasts tell it that same God was not able to control the translation
of His word beyond the KJ 1611 version! Amazing, Isn't it?

I think they show some ignorance on this particular matter!

Al





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Pilotbutteradio" wrote in message
...
Why would God need to "control" other versions when He His word is here in
the KJV ? He promised to preserve His word and He did just that. He did
not
promise, nor is it necessary to ensure that all versions are pure.

Wow! Way to cover your ass!

My point was, and is, that the KJV IS a translation itself. Also, those
who translated it stated that they USED MANY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS
(sources) in order to get the best understanding of the Word. ...Or
haven't you ever bothered to read the preface to your 1611 KJV?

Why would not the same apply today? We read many different translations
in order to get the best understanding of the situation. Check with
Wycliffe to learn some of the problems of translation. There are often
NO WORDS in a given language to perfectly describe some passages. I'm
sure you must have heard of the word "love" in the KJV that is derived
from three different Hebrew or Greek words. There is no way that just
the word "love" can fully describe / define the real meaning of all three.

Now, If God can so perfectly provide, protect, and promote His Word in
the KJV why can He not do the same with some other version? Also, if
the KJV is the alpha and omega of God's Word why not tell the Wycliffe
translators to get their butts back home and save all that mission /
translation money. If the heathen want to come to God bad enough
they'll learn the English language of 1611 (almost 400 years old) so
they can read it. Never mind that some of them don't even have THEIR
OWN language in written form!

The 1611 still contains some antiquated words. I still think it's all
right to spell cows C-O-W-S instead of K-I-N-E. I still think it is all
right to use the word urinate instead of **** which the KJV uses. I
hope you'll get in the pulpit, or in your Sunday school class and read
one of the several passages that uses the above word next Sunday. :-)
You can start looking about I or II Kings chapter 18 - unless you prefer
a concordance.

I could go on and on and on, but think I've made my point -- for now. :-)

Oh, for the guy who said the kid that started this thread probably
wouldn't jump back in. This "kid" is retired. :-) Also, I sometimes
start threads to make people think - before they get Alzheimer's and
can't think. ;-)

Al

============

Pilotbutteradio wrote:
Why would God need to "control" other versions when He His word is here in
the KJV ? He promised to preserve His word and He did just that. He did not
promise, nor is it necessary to ensure that all versions are pure.

Al, I am not militant KJV only. However there are many issues at play in
this debate. Not the least of which is the quality and quantity of Greek
manuscripts.

"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
My point was, and is, that the KJV IS a translation itself. Also, those
who translated it stated that they USED MANY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS
(sources) in order to get the best understanding of the Word. ...Or
haven't you ever bothered to read the preface to your 1611 KJV?

I have, and have fully researched the subject.


Why would not the same apply today?
We read many different translations in order to get the best understanding
of the situation. Check with Wycliffe to learn some of the problems of
translation. There are often NO WORDS in a given language to perfectly
describe some passages. I'm sure you must have heard of the word "love"
in the KJV that is derived from three different Hebrew or Greek words.
There is no way that just the word "love" can fully describe / define the
real meaning of all three.

This is very true. I have studied biblical Greek, and the Greek language is
MUCH more descriptive and complicated than English.


Now, If God can so perfectly provide, protect, and promote His Word in the
KJV why can He not do the same with some other version? Also, if

He certainly can. The question is if He did, or wanted to.

the KJV is the alpha and omega of God's Word why not tell the Wycliffe
translators to get their butts back home and save all that mission /
translation money. If the heathen want to come to God bad enough

Ah....money. I think you are on to something here.

they'll learn the English language of 1611 (almost 400 years old) so they
can read it. Never mind that some of them don't even have THEIR OWN
language in written form!

That is really the only translation work that is still needed. Translation
of the Textus Receptus into other languages. It is my understanding that the
KJV has been translated into 100's of languages already. I don't think we
need to translate Wescott and Hort or Nestle Aland into the same languages.

Please re-read my previous post, God is clear about how His wisdom is
understood. Before God pulled me out of my rutt, I did not understand much
of the bible no matter what version I read. After He saved me by His grace,
I instantly understood most of it. His word is spiritually discerned. I do
not view it as an intellectual pursuit. I have been down the road of the
scollars. It leads to self-righteous nosense. Much the way that the newer
versions have led to confusion and division within the body of Christ. Why
do we need more than 100 versions? How will our students memorize scripture?
I read the KJV (duh...). I have spent hours with my son (11) studying God's
word in the KJ version. My son goes to a Lutheran school and is required to
learn verses in the NIV. It is confusing for a kid to go through that. I
would suggest we leave the extra translations for the people who have
already built a solid foundation of biblical understanding.
I also believe that part of man's arrogance is rooted in the thought that
newer is better. Perhaps in a secular way it is, I won't argue that my
746pro runs rings around the old Kenwood twins. ;-). However, I do not
believe in spiritual evolution. God's truth does not change. Further, I
think that the men that put the KJV together were perfectly qualified to
understand the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages properly. I do not
subscribe to the idea that our "modern understanding" is better in the 21st
century. I think that the further we get from the facts of history, the more
blurry it becomes. Ask the people who were closest to the action for the
most accurate account of what words meant then.
..
I find it interesting to note that our dictionary evolves to suit the times.
I was amazed when I learned this. Meanings of words change.

Now, one can certainly say that when partaking in word studies and the like,
that additional translations can be helpful. But they certainly are not
mandatory for understanding, and there are enough subtle differences that
justify giving one pause. Every time that I have compared a newer
translation to the KJV (where I noticed an apparent differnce in meaning) I
have looked up the passage in my Greek bible and found the KJV to be more
accurate both linguistically and spiritualy. Of course it depends on which
Greek manuscript you are using.


The 1611 still contains some antiquated words. I still think it's all
right to spell cows C-O-W-S instead of K-I-N-E. I still think it is all
right to use the word urinate instead of **** which the KJV uses. I hope
you'll get in the pulpit, or in your Sunday school class and read one of
the several passages that uses the above word next Sunday. :-) You can
start looking about I or II Kings chapter 18 - unless you prefer a
concordance.

Certainly there are many antiquated words, and yes it is allright to
modernize a word like Kine. It is entertaining in itself to look those words
up to see what they meant. I have found that for the most part, the language
difference is not significant enough to cloud the understanding.
What troubles me is the REMOVAL of words and entire passages, in addition
to the items of Greek translation I mention above, and the way the KJV is
demeaned in the preface of some translations. The fact that in just the NIV
alone, there are many different versions. Some omitting this and some
qualifying that.

I am sad to say this truth about modern versions. There is always a "better,
more understandable" version on the bookstore shelf. Why? Because if we
copyright it, we can sell it. I can add a tweak here and a tweak there, and
make myself some money. There is no copyright on the KJV. Nor should there
be on the word of God.


I could go on and on and on, but think I've made my point -- for now. :-)

Yes, we both could. I think it is good enough to say that these things are
best left for mature Christians to discuss in a pleasant and thoughtful way.
If I can get someone to open their bible and pour over it for information, I
have done my job. :-)


Oh, for the guy who said the kid that started this thread probably
wouldn't jump back in. This "kid" is retired. :-) Also, I sometimes
start threads to make people think - before they get Alzheimer's and can't
think. ;-)

Al

============

Pilotbutteradio wrote:
Why would God need to "control" other versions when He His word is here
in the KJV ? He promised to preserve His word and He did just that. He
did not promise, nor is it necessary to ensure that all versions are
pure.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Pilotbutteradio wrote:

Al, I am not militant KJV only.

But MANY are.



"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...

Now, If God can so perfectly provide, protect, and promote His Word in the
KJV why can He not do the same with some other version? Also, if


He certainly can. The question is if He did, or wanted to.

It's possible some of the translations are the "strong delusion" we are
told of. However, many KJO folks throw the baby out with the bath water.


the KJV is the alpha and omega of God's Word why not tell the Wycliffe
translators to get their butts back home and save all that mission /
translation money. If the heathen want to come to God bad enough


Ah....money. I think you are on to something here.


Yes, and it goes a lot further than "a lot of folks making money off
those 'perversion versions'". It might be some woman making money off
selling her KJO literature.

There are those who think this whole KJO thing goes a LOT deeper.
Perhaps by going KJO it will keep many away from ALL the other versions,
including the NASB and the Septuagint. Some think it is mainly to keep
folks away from the Septuagint.






they'll learn the English language of 1611 (almost 400 years old) so they
can read it. Never mind that some of them don't even have THEIR OWN
language in written form!


That is really the only translation work that is still needed. Translation
of the Textus Receptus into other languages. It is my understanding that the
KJV has been translated into 100's of languages already. I don't think we
need to translate Wescott and Hort or Nestle Aland into the same languages.

Sounds like you have been reading Gail's book. Do you realize she uses
witchcraft at the very front of that book - and other places? Also that
MANY of her references are lies, at least by omission, and some by out
and out telling things that are not true?



Before God pulled me out of my rutt, I did not understand much
of the bible no matter what version I read.

Do you realize that Gail NEVER capitalizes Bible in her book - just as
you did not then?






I read the KJV (duh...). I have spent hours with my son (11) studying God's
word in the KJ version. My son goes to a Lutheran school and is required to
learn verses in the NIV.

The NIV, though very "popular", is far from the most accurate. This is
the one Gail quotes the most but she is really after the NASB and
Septuagint.



God's truth does not change.

But words used to translate God's Word / Truth so change. Remember when
"gay" meant happy? When "get down" meant to actually get down off
something?



Ask the people who were closest to the action for the
most accurate account of what words meant then.

Are we trying to reach 400 year old people? Good luck. I suspect we
should be, like David, serving our own generation. I Cor. 13 speaks of
"charity" but it meant "love" when it was written. Today one thinks of
a hand out as charity.



What troubles me is the REMOVAL of words and entire passages, in addition
to the items of Greek translation I mention above, and the way the KJV is
demeaned in the preface of some translations. The fact that in just the NIV
alone, there are many different versions. Some omitting this and some
qualifying that.

Yep. That's the NIV for you. Seems they have come out with a queer
bible (yes, I used lower case in THAT case) which I'm sure will leave
out many more -- and possibly add in a few. But that is THOSE Bibles.
You still don't need to throw out the good with the bad. You need to CULL.



I am sad to say this truth about modern versions. There is always a "better,
more understandable" version on the bookstore shelf. Why? Because if we
copyright it, we can sell it.

This is another of Gail's and Texxe's arguments! Do you think they GIVE
their books away. NO. They are COPYRIGHTED! There are people who
always accuse you of what THEY are guilty of, and if you've been been
properly bewitched, enchanted, mesmerized, you'll never realize it.