Posted on 03/28/2017 5:18:29 AM PDT by WhatNot
A few days ago, after witnessing blatant hypocrisy by certain members of a
particular Caucus in Washington D.C, I decided to start my own Caucus here on Freerepublic.
(Please note: This is a "King James Bible Believers Caucus" thread,
if you disagree that the KJB is the preserved word of God, this is not the thread for you.)
FREE REPUBLIC'S CAUCUS RULES:
Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited. What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open. Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.
Thank you for your input, your reply is what this Caucus is about. The inclusion of King James Bible verses in comments about important issues facing the world today.
You mean KJV (King James Version) set against NIV (New International Version) is fundamental underlying reason of what this thread is all about? And here I thought it was supposed to be about hypocrisy.[smile]
That makes little to no sense under caucus designation guidelines under religion forum rules, unless you are really trying to make fools out of King James Only, uh, adherents, perhaps...
You had said in comment #38;
No. We can't. It would be impossible. Already, in comment #57 the NIV was discussed, even criticized. Not that that breaks my puny suffering heart, or something...
Picking on the "nearly inspired version" is nothing new.
If we were to have a number of different 'caucus' designations protecting different English language translations of Holy Writ, then, as Wyrd bið ful aræd made observation in reply #44;
He's already been proven correct -- if not before, then at the least by now.
'King James only' caucus designation is inherently problematic. A person couldn't even bring reasons why they thought KJV was superior to other English language translations -- if that's what they truly believed.
__________________________________________________________
The King James is the authority for English translation for me however I do enjoy reading the New English Version.
As far as the Holy Bible being The Words of God, well I believe that the Hebrew text was The Word of God. As far as the Greek or certainly the Latin I like to hope they are.
When I have questions about certain passages I have gone to Strongs and other reference works for the original meaning, The KJV is most often right in my humble opinion compared to the newer versions, and sometimes by a wide margin.
While it is apparent that Christ spoke in Greek & Hebrew, mostly He spoke to those around Him in Aramaic. We don't seem to have any of those writings around. His Apostles also spoke in Aramaic although it is likely that since they were occupied by Rome they all also spoke some Latin. While Greek was the language used in schools outside the temple it is likely nearly everyone in the province spoke with some fluency in Greek. My point is that there are no original writings of The New Testament, we have translations of second hand remembrance of what was said. If those who wrote down what others said the Apostles said translated it correctly then perhaps it is all correct but that would be unlikely. As a whole, I think I can say the Bible is the word of God, perhaps there are words there that did not come from God but are what the translator thought he heard the person he heard it from said.
Considering all that, we are fortunate to have what we have of the New Testament considering thousands of unapproved books that claimed to be from the Apostles were burned after Nicea. Perhaps we can see why they were burned when we see the remnants of some of them that escaped.
When people tell me their church is based on the authority of The Bible I often ask which one? To me if you aren't communicating with The Holy Ghost then you don't know if what you are reading, if what you are told to believe about what you are reading is true or not.
The Holy Bible is wonderful, we are very fortunate indeed to have it, it alone however is not enough. It would be good to have someone who could say, "thus saith The Lord". Roman Catholics are lucky to have a Pope although this one has given me much reason for concern.
I think the Holy Bible helps keep us lay people informed when it seems the leaders of the church are heading out to left field. I don't think it is a perfect tool to judge by but it is what we have.
Because the basic doctrines of Christianity are repeated in the Holy Bible so often it would be hard to not understand the basics, Christ died for our sin so we could live with Him forever IF we repent, accept and follow Him then His Grace will cover us and allow us to be forgiven.
It is the nuance of The Word that seems to throw us so off balance. I don't think it should. When people start telling me the finer points of The Trinity I sometimes smile and act as though I'm listening. When some tell me that priests shouldn't be married because there is no proof that The Apostle Paul was married I do the same. There are many points of doctrine and nuance that I refuse to argue about because I don't think you can find that authority in the Bible, but it's OK with me if you want to as long as it is with someone else besides me.
Does NKJV count?
There is only one KJB. Any Bible that is not the First Edition 1611 (which you call KJB) is a version of the KJB. You seem to be saying that ANY VERSION of the KJB is fine.
Hypocrisy is merely the topic for today. Because Caucus rules state that KJB verses be used when posting scripture, that in no way gives credence to any of your personal suspicions.
No. We can't. It would be impossible. Already, in comment #57 the NIV was discussed, even criticized. Not that that breaks my puny suffering heart, or something..
If we were to have a number of different 'caucus' designations protecting different English language translations of Holy Writ, then, as Wyrd bið ful aræd made observation in reply #44
Is freedom of association dead in our Free Republic? What business is it of yours or any ones, who members of this Caucus associate with, no one is forcing you to click on the link, no my friend you did that of your own freewill, and then because you object to what you read, you want to ban others who want to participate. Shame on you, this is not Red China.
As long as it is King James Bible it is fine, IMHO. If you disagree that is your right. If you don’t want to join, that is OK too, if you do want to join, then I’m happy to put you on the ping list.
Your hysterics are unwarranted, I’ve not advocated any religion, nor do I intend to do so.
I provided examples of your own words.
Nobody gets to 'caucus up' then take potshots from behind walls which shield their own words (and themselves) from criticism.
Your opening salvo against Congressional Freedom Caucus (mild as that salvo was) was doing that thing while hiding behind KJV Bible.
Now you hide behind FR membership, and freedom itself? That's despicable.
I rationally cannot be "wanting to ban others from participating" when opposing a caucus designation which bans people from participating. What I am against is yourself being in any way empowered to ban others under rules which you arbitrarily create, seeking to enforce that nonsense underneath FR RF rules.
No. Shame on you for trying to exploit the rules and take advantage of those to create your own little cult of butthurt, here on FR. There was a cadre of SLC Mormons who tried to pull a similar kind of maneuver about 8 to 9 years ago. Most of them ended up zotted right back to Utah.
No seriously, if you like the NKJV that is fine, you can join, all the Caucus asks is when posting scripture, use the KJB, that way when people are discussing topics, there is no confusion as to what is being relayed.
There's many Bible versions out there, and by keeping the main focus on one standard, everyone can be on the same page in the forum.
Will people post other version from time to time? Probably, but again the main focus will be the KJB.
Do you try to ban everything in the world you don't like? Or just things here on FR? Again what religion have I advocated? Cut and paste it, so we can all see it.
Well, I see the naysayers, whiners and snowflakes got their wish, oh well
I’m not asking to join. I’m just promoting the NKJV, which I find to be a help with the ancient verb tenses, but retaining the beauty of expression.
That said, I join other posters here who encourage you to use the more universally understood and accepted acronym, KJV.
There you go again. The flipping hypocrisy came from LYING RYAN... He refused to allow anyone but his own donors to pen his legislation.. What does God say about things done in ‘secret’?
Now, that the Caucus has been turned into a discussion by the powers that be, (probably because those who objected, pay most of the bills), I’m more free to talk about things, and to answer your question, I see the King James Bible, as the actual preserved word of God, the Bible. Not just another version.
You might want to read the following article:
http://www.eaec.org/bibleversions/nkjv_2.htm
Disclaimer: I don’t agree with everything in the linked article, but it points out many differences from the KJB.
Ping for later, and can I be on your list?
But at least then they would be standing on the moral high ground to oppose anything he wanted to do. They could at least say, "Hey, we didn't vote for that rascal, so we have the moral authority to oppose everything he wants"
As it is today, they come off as nothing but political hacks, who's only interest is preserving their own money, property or prestige.
Their "conservative principles" are for sale. Hypocrites is the nice word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.