Something God couldn't do?
 

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

Al Patrick wrote:


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!


HE 'lost control' of it a few millenia before that. Most of the Old
Testament was written after the fact to validate land theft and murder
of one's neighbours. Note that nothing has changed.

I especially liked the spin doctoring concerning Egypt. Most likely
Pharaoh got sick of being ripped off at every turn, so he booted the
Chosen. The treasury was getting drained and the hemorrhage had to be
stopped. Billing for work on the Pyramids that was never done was
considered to be one of the bigger problems.

The episode with the missing seven years' worth of grain was a prime
trigger for the expulsion. To this day, Moses denies any wrongdoing or
insider trading. He DOES complain about the eternal heat and pitchfork
jabs, however. Pictures of Conrad Black, GW Bush, Martha Stewart and
every board member of Enron line the "Coming soon to a Damnation near
you" hall.



The Book of michael II verse 3

Here's a link to a VERY intense website that demonizes everything that is
outside of the KJV:
http://www.av1611.org/

These people are so incredibly closed-minded. It's really funny to read
about all the things that they put down (Christian rock and Santa Claus are
two such evils).

I once wrote them an email telling them that some things that have occurred
during the past 393 years aren't necessarily of the devil, but they never
responded.

"lsmyer" wrote in message
...
Here's a link to a VERY intense website that demonizes everything that is
outside of the KJV:
http://www.av1611.org/

These people are so incredibly closed-minded. It's really funny to read
about all the things that they put down (Christian rock and Santa Claus
are
two such evils).

I once wrote them an email telling them that some things that have
occurred
during the past 393 years aren't necessarily of the devil, but they never
responded.

I suspect you used reasoning, and showed an ability to think for yourself.
You're evil.

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

"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

I heard one minister say the whole KJO thing was brought about to keep
us from the Septuagint Bible.

I'm sure there are those who merchandise the KJO thing. Take a look at:

http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rar...1611-leaf.html

Since that url is so long I started to get a tinyurl but it timed out -
twice. Sorry about that.

Anyway, here's a cut & paste of some merchandising of the KJV Bible:

[start quote]

We offer these 1611 King James Pulpit Folio First Edition Bible Leaves
for considerably less than the “$5,000 each” that both Pat Robertson’s
700 Club and John Hagee Ministries have been selling them for on
National Television for many years! We offer those SAME leaves at under
$300, and the extremely elaborate Title Pages (first chapter of a book)
start at under $600.

This is simply one of the most impressive things you could possibly have
hanging on the wall in your home. People often call us back to tell us
how the gift of one of these 1611 King James Bible Leaves brought the
recipient of the gift to tears. Imagine… having a favorite passage of
scripture from the first printing of the most printed book in the world:
The King James Bible of 1611. Call today to see if your favorite passage
of scripture is available.


ITEM # KJF-1: $295 - A Regular Selection from the Old or New Testament
ITEM # KJF-2: $375 – A Leaf from the Psalms (slightly more ornate)
ITEM # KJF-3: $595 – A Title Page to most Old or New Testament Books
(very ornate)
ITEM # KJF-4: $1,500 - $7,500+ INQUIRE for a price quote on very
“premium” selections
such as Genesis 1, Psalm 23, The Ten Commandments, John 3:16, etc.

Note: Yes, the Apocrypha WAS part of the 1611 King James Bible (and
virtually ALL Bibles
printed prior to its removal in 1885). Apocrypha leaves start at just $175.

[end quote]

Looks like three different ministries involved in the merchandising of
the KJV argument.

Al

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


lsmyer wrote:

Here's a link to a VERY intense website that demonizes everything that is
outside of the KJV:
http://www.av1611.org/

These people are so incredibly closed-minded. It's really funny to read
about all the things that they put down (Christian rock and Santa Claus are
two such evils).

I once wrote them an email telling them that some things that have occurred
during the past 393 years aren't necessarily of the devil, but they never
responded.

You're wading into dangerous territory here. Haven't you heard Pastor Peter
J. Peeters...? John Ashcroft? George W. Bush?!? Those guys have a direct
hotline to God. Stop the heresy!!! You obviously don't support the troops.

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
I haven't herd ANY religious freak yet that truly made sense. What do you
expect?

"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

zerbo wrote:

You're wading into dangerous territory here. Haven't you heard Pastor Peter
J. Peeters...? John Ashcroft? George W. Bush?!? Those guys have a direct
hotline to God.


Unlikely.

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.




Pastorial mike II

"zerbo" wrote in message
...
You're wading into dangerous territory here. Haven't you heard
Pastor Peter
J. Peeters...? John Ashcroft? George W. Bush?!? Those guys have a
direct
hotline to God. Stop the heresy!!! You obviously don't support the
troops.


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.

In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"zerbo" wrote in message
...
You're wading into dangerous territory here. Haven't you heard
Pastor Peter J. Peeters...? John Ashcroft? George W. Bush?!? Those
guys have a direct hotline to God. Stop the heresy!!! You obviously
don't support the troops.


I may have missed some of your posts (actually, a lot of your posts)

Snip

I'm missing 100% of his posts and I will continue miss them even as he
continues to morph.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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.

"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
Pilotbutteradio wrote:

Al, I am not militant KJV only.

But MANY are.

Yes indeed.




"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?


I read the book years ago. I would not argue that she goes over the top in
places. But as you said, we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater
either. I would argue for the things in the book that ARE valid and
supported elsewhere. Like the points I made above. We do have to be good
stewards, rightly dividing the word of truth.



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?


Okay, Bible. My appologies. This is not about Gail. The Bible is spiritually
discerned. Regardless of the version, and regardless of what Gail says or
does not say in her book. If God wants you to understand it, you will. If He
does not want you to, you won't.







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?

Yes, agreed. Just as I addressed in my previous post.




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.

Yes it meant love "in action".

The archaic language in the translation was not the point. The reference was
to the manuscripts and the meaning of the Greek words. Not the changed
meaning of words used to translate the manuscripts.

I have yet to see an example of where an old word in the KJ has obscured
the meaning of an important issue in the Bible. I would like to hear an
example if you have one. I do hear many who claim to be Christians, making
excuses about why they won't read the Bible. I suspect the problem lies in
the heart, not the text.



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 have an NASB here that I use as a secondary source. This is one where when
I hear things worded differently than the KJ, I have investigated the words
in question. Every time I have found the KJ to be correct IMHO. That would
include looking at the received Greek text, and Greek text based on late
1800's variety.
Again, just IMHO.




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.


Well I am certainly a capitalist. But I do have trouble with all of the
Christian stores around today, and you do have a point about selling other
related books. It would be hard for me to know where to draw the line there.
The commercialization of the Christian faith is sickening to me. More
because I know so many of the people involved to be pretending, and not
changed.

You must be subscribed to some Christian oriented newsgroups. Can you
recommend some?





----== 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:


The archaic language in the translation was not the point. The reference was
to the manuscripts and the meaning of the Greek words. Not the changed
meaning of words used to translate the manuscripts.

I think if you really study it out you'll find that the Textus Receptus
/ Received Text is not all it is made out to be. Didn't someone say if
one could control history they could control the future. Part of
"history" was controlled in that manuscript.


I have an NASB here that I use as a secondary source.

That is the one I read the most. However, I also use the KJV, and
others. I'm not against the KJV, just against the idea that it is the
ONLY version that is God's Word. I also use the Amplified for its
different shades of meanings; i.e. synonyms. I read the Septuagint
because that is probably the most accurate of all the older versions and
is the one that Christ and the disciples quoted from when they quoted
the old testament - though some would have us believe it didn't come
along until 200 or 300 years after Christ. The Farrar Fenton Bible has
some very interesting aspects to it - including calling the land of
Shinar (I think this is what the KJV calls it) the Bush country, and
capitalizes Bush. He also seems to know that the "Jews" in the current
nation of "Israel" do not constitute the whole of the 12 (? 13 with
Joseph's two sons) tribes of Israel.


Well I am certainly a capitalist. But I do have trouble with all of the
Christian stores around today, and you do have a point about selling other
related books. It would be hard for me to know where to draw the line there.
The commercialization of the Christian faith is sickening to me. More
because I know so many of the people involved to be pretending, and not
changed.

Hollywood, and the movies, is full of "actors" who were first called
hypocrites. . . . Interesting!



You must be subscribed to some Christian oriented newsgroups. Can you
recommend some?

Nope. I participated some with the group that pulled out from Stair's
group. They appeared to be more interested in pulling Stair down than
lifting Christ up. If one even proposed that he preached a lot of
truth, along with all the other stuff, they were considered a "traitor"
to the group and assumed to be a spy for Stair. :-(

I did a search of the newsgroups that I have access to and came up with
65 groups that have the word "Christian" in it. I don't know of any of
them that I can recommend. They're probably mostly all taken over by
the enemies of the truth and Truth! ;-)

Interesting thoughts. I had not heard of the Farrar Fenton. My preference
will be to be able to fluently read the Bible in Greek. I am not there yet,
but there is still hope! I don't think it is particularly necessary, but I
do think it will provide some additional angles. I think you and I would
agree much more than disagree on matters of translations.

Though I have not been into any groups of late, my previous experiences were
not very satisfying. I found mostly very immature people both spiritually
and in general. Young people defending sinful behavior etc. Perhaps I should
poke around in a few and see what I find. Please let me know if you find
anything of substance in a newsgroup. Till then, there are sure plenty of
good websites to dig through, and of course the best place to be is in His
word (and His Word) ;-)


"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...


Pilotbutteradio wrote:


The archaic language in the translation was not the point. The reference
was to the manuscripts and the meaning of the Greek words. Not the
changed meaning of words used to translate the manuscripts.

I think if you really study it out you'll find that the Textus Receptus /
Received Text is not all it is made out to be. Didn't someone say if one
could control history they could control the future. Part of "history" was
controlled in that manuscript.


I have an NASB here that I use as a secondary source.

That is the one I read the most. However, I also use the KJV, and others.
I'm not against the KJV, just against the idea that it is the ONLY version
that is God's Word. I also use the Amplified for its different shades of
meanings; i.e. synonyms. I read the Septuagint because that is probably
the most accurate of all the older versions and is the one that Christ and
the disciples quoted from when they quoted the old testament - though some
would have us believe it didn't come along until 200 or 300 years after
Christ. The Farrar Fenton Bible has some very interesting aspects to it -
including calling the land of Shinar (I think this is what the KJV calls
it) the Bush country, and capitalizes Bush. He also seems to know that
the "Jews" in the current nation of "Israel" do not constitute the whole
of the 12 (? 13 with Joseph's two sons) tribes of Israel.


Well I am certainly a capitalist. But I do have trouble with all of the
Christian stores around today, and you do have a point about selling
other related books. It would be hard for me to know where to draw the
line there. The commercialization of the Christian faith is sickening to
me. More because I know so many of the people involved to be pretending,
and not changed.

Hollywood, and the movies, is full of "actors" who were first called
hypocrites. . . . Interesting!



You must be subscribed to some Christian oriented newsgroups. Can you
recommend some?

Nope. I participated some with the group that pulled out from Stair's
group. They appeared to be more interested in pulling Stair down than
lifting Christ up. If one even proposed that he preached a lot of truth,
along with all the other stuff, they were considered a "traitor" to the
group and assumed to be a spy for Stair. :-(

I did a search of the newsgroups that I have access to and came up with 65
groups that have the word "Christian" in it. I don't know of any of them
that I can recommend. They're probably mostly all taken over by the
enemies of the truth and Truth! ;-)




----== 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
...
Interesting thoughts. I had not heard of the Farrar Fenton. My preference
will be to be able to fluently read the Bible in Greek. I am not there
yet,
but there is still hope! I don't think it is particularly necessary, but I
do think it will provide some additional angles. I think you and I would
agree much more than disagree on matters of translations.

Though I have not been into any groups of late, my previous experiences
were
not very satisfying. I found mostly very immature people both spiritually
and in general. Young people defending sinful behavior etc. Perhaps I
should
poke around in a few and see what I find. Please let me know if you find
anything of substance in a newsgroup. Till then, there are sure plenty of
good websites to dig through, and of course the best place to be is in His
word (and His Word) ;-)

Why don't you guys get a room?

In article kymbd.2875$vJ.2483@trnddc05, honus1
@earthlink.net.is.invalid says...

"Pilotbutteradio" wrote in message
...
Interesting thoughts. I had not heard of the Farrar Fenton. My preference
will be to be able to fluently read the Bible in Greek. I am not there
yet,
but there is still hope! I don't think it is particularly necessary, but I
do think it will provide some additional angles. I think you and I would
agree much more than disagree on matters of translations.

Though I have not been into any groups of late, my previous experiences
were
not very satisfying. I found mostly very immature people both spiritually
and in general. Young people defending sinful behavior etc. Perhaps I
should
poke around in a few and see what I find. Please let me know if you find
anything of substance in a newsgroup. Till then, there are sure plenty of
good websites to dig through, and of course the best place to be is in His
word (and His Word) ;-)

Why don't you guys get a room?




You owe me a keyboard! LOL.

BDK

I misspelled his first name. It is Ferrar Fenton. Translated direct
from the original Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek languages. It, along with
lots of other interesting materials, is available from Destiny
Publishers, Merrimac, Massachusetts, 01860.

http://www.destinypublishers.com/

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

Pilotbutteradio wrote:

Interesting thoughts. I had not heard of the Farrar Fenton. My preference
will be to be able to fluently read the Bible in Greek. I am not there yet,
but there is still hope! I don't think it is particularly necessary, but I
do think it will provide some additional angles. I think you and I would
agree much more than disagree on matters of translations.

Though I have not been into any groups of late, my previous experiences were
not very satisfying. I found mostly very immature people both spiritually
and in general. Young people defending sinful behavior etc. Perhaps I should
poke around in a few and see what I find. Please let me know if you find
anything of substance in a newsgroup. Till then, there are sure plenty of
good websites to dig through, and of course the best place to be is in His
word (and His Word) ;-)

Pilotbutteradio wrote:
So is it then safe to say that you read the New World Translation?

I have. So far it's the best translation out of those I've seen.

Not affiliated with the group that publishes it, BTW.

--
Most dying mothers say, "I love you, son," or "Take care of your sister."
Why were the last words of Kerry's mother a lecture on integrity?

But you can't take the New World Translation back to the original text
with the Strong's concordance which will clear up the KJV translation
errors.
Dale

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:56:14 GMT, clifto wrote:

Pilotbutteradio wrote:
So is it then safe to say that you read the New World Translation?

I have. So far it's the best translation out of those I've seen.

Not affiliated with the group that publishes it, BTW.



----== 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 =---

For those who'd like to learn more about the Ferrar Fenton Bible the url
is: http://ferrarfenton.com/

Wow, that is interesting. You read it but are not affiliated with the group
that publishes it. You are a first in that respect for me.

My experience with the NWT was a cursory pass to find all of the places that
it removes references to the diety of Christ. Those places are highlighted
in my copy.

Are you aware of any other translation that adds the article in John 1:1 ?
Also, are you aware of any other translation that removes references to
Christ's diety? Do you know what greek text those versions are based on?

I also wonder why you consider the NWT to be the best you have seen?
I do not want to debate the definite article here. However, I do study
different views on Christianity, and would like to hear a little more about
where you are comming from.



"clifto" wrote in message
...
Pilotbutteradio wrote:
So is it then safe to say that you read the New World Translation?

I have. So far it's the best translation out of those I've seen.

Not affiliated with the group that publishes it, BTW.

--
Most dying mothers say, "I love you, son," or "Take care of your sister."
Why were the last words of Kerry's mother a lecture on integrity?




----== 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:
Are you aware of any other translation that adds the article in John 1:1 ?

No, but I haven't seen a lot of translations. Maybe ten?

Also, are you aware of any other translation that removes references to
Christ's diety? Do you know what greek text those versions are based on?

All I remember is seeing pictures of an actual, original text when I
went to verify or disprove what the translation said. It used "o theos"
where it meant *the* God, and "theos" without the article "o" where
it meant "a god". I understand that even in modern Greek usage, the
polite way to use a proper noun is with the preceding "o", and found
that to be the case with the last Greek-speaking cow-orker I knew.
So either John was being deliberately rude by calling the Word "theos"
instead of "o theos", or he was being specific.

I also wonder why you consider the NWT to be the best you have seen?
I do not want to debate the definite article here. However, I do study
different views on Christianity, and would like to hear a little more about
where you are comming from.

I looked at this back when I was trying to learn a little Greek in
preparation for a vacation in Greece years ago. I'm not a linguist,
nor is biblical Greek the same as modern Greek, but everything I looked
at appeared to be best translated in the NWT.

--
Most dying mothers say, "I love you, son," or "Take care of your sister."
Why were the last words of Kerry's mother a lecture on integrity?

Thanks for answering the questions. All I would say to you is that you may
want to do a little more research on the article issue. Seems that the very
large majority of Biblical Greek scholars do not think that the article
should be there when changing the Greek to English. I do not remember the
reason, I could look it up in my Koine Greek study guide. It is a
complicated issue, that is over my head in terms of my understanding of
Biblical Greek at this point in time :-) I have yet to see any English
translation other than the NWT that includes it. I have about 20
translations here, so those are the ones I have checked.
My other concern would be that the NWT removes all of the other references
to Christ's diety, and the reasons they give for doing so are pretty lame.
It seems to me that it was intentionally done to validate a particular
doctrine.
You may also want to look into the Greek text used with regard to the other
differences in the NWT. There are many manuscripts, some are different than
others, with great debate as to which are most authentic, oldest, tampered
with and so on. Take a look also at the qualifications of the individuals
who translated the NWT from Greek. I think you would find some interesting
things. I got into it pretty hard because of JW's comming to my door and
telling me that Jesus is not Lord.
It was a very interesting time, looking into all of these things. The
internet is ripe with information, as is the bookstore.
Thanks for your candor. I hope that this provided some food for thought
anyway, assuming you care to investigate. If you do not, it is my hope that
someone else will. :-)

Dave


"clifto" wrote in message
...
Pilotbutteradio wrote:
Are you aware of any other translation that adds the article in John 1:1
?

No, but I haven't seen a lot of translations. Maybe ten?

Also, are you aware of any other translation that removes references to
Christ's diety? Do you know what greek text those versions are based on?

All I remember is seeing pictures of an actual, original text when I
went to verify or disprove what the translation said. It used "o theos"
where it meant *the* God, and "theos" without the article "o" where
it meant "a god". I understand that even in modern Greek usage, the
polite way to use a proper noun is with the preceding "o", and found
that to be the case with the last Greek-speaking cow-orker I knew.
So either John was being deliberately rude by calling the Word "theos"
instead of "o theos", or he was being specific.

I also wonder why you consider the NWT to be the best you have seen?
I do not want to debate the definite article here. However, I do study
different views on Christianity, and would like to hear a little more
about
where you are comming from.

I looked at this back when I was trying to learn a little Greek in
preparation for a vacation in Greece years ago. I'm not a linguist,
nor is biblical Greek the same as modern Greek, but everything I looked
at appeared to be best translated in the NWT.

--
Most dying mothers say, "I love you, son," or "Take care of your sister."
Why were the last words of Kerry's mother a lecture on integrity?




----== 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 =---