Posted on 03/28/2017 5:18:29 AM PDT by WhatNot
You are mentioning Catholics on a so-called Caucus thread. Thus, I ask for the Caucus denotation to be removed.
Sure, not a problem.
Sure, not a problem. Was just discussing with another poster.
In a “normal” caucus thread, the denomination of the caucus can’t discuss other denominations. Extending that, I assume in a caucus based on a specific version of the Bible there can’t be discussion of other translations — and I see all kinds of shade being thrown. All kinds.
The new KJV is junk.
My problem is you using a broad brush to paint all members of the Freedom Caucus as hypocrites. Perhaps some are, but you don’t know what is in their hearts. If you have specific examples of freedom caucus members that have said one thing and then done another then you should address that specifically instead of judging the entire group.
It’s disappointing to not get rid of obamacare, and people will try to point the finger at someone to blame, but it goes far beyond the actions of only a few Freedom Caucus members IMO.
Did I make an inflammatory or insulting statement about Catholics? If so, then yeah. Delete that post.
I was glad to see you referenced the King James Bible and not the king james “version”, which is another subtil form of perversion,
The mere mention of another denomination on a Caucus thread will cause the caucus label to be lifted. Read the rules on the Religion Moderator’s page.
Topics can include but not limited to.
Bible
Character
Christian History
Church Life
Culture
Discipleship
Emotions
Eschatology
Ethics
Evangelism
Family
Holidays
Knowing God
Money
Prayer
Sin
Spiritual Growth
Theology
etc, etc, etc.....
There is a 1611 First Edition and then there are subsequent versions. I wish to clarify. If you refer to the “KJB” then it would have to be the First Edition 1611 printing. Everything else after that is a version as in “KJV Bible”.
Is your caucus intended for the First Edition 1611 or is it intended for all version of the KJV?
You were asked earlier if you agree with the Preface to the 1611. Do you?
Ok thanks, I won’t add you to the ping list.
Or is it the case, that if some agitator, some person who does not belong to the Caucus, some person not even on the ping list, mentions something that is not allowed by Caucus rules, automatically the Caucus must be banned?
Here is an example.
1Cor 15 KJV
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
NIV
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
The KJV has it past tense, they were asleep but not now.
The NIV confuses it.
Romans chapter 8
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. future,
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. past tense, it had already happened.
You should notice that in verse 17 Paul said we may be also glorified together, meaning future.
but you can see that in verse`s 28,29 and 30 he is talking about the ones who have already been glorified, he is plainly talking about the ones who have slept but went with Christ. past tense.
Some of the different versions will clarify some things but over all the KJV and the Douay Rheims from what i have read of it are the two best.
Really the only requirement is that when referring to Scripture, King James Bible Verses be used. Do you want to join?
Yes, I agree with the preface, why?
My comments are merely ethical in nature.
Here's my point with that, and then I'm moving on to other things. If people hold themselves out to being the most ethical, when it comes to certain beliefs, whether personal, political or spiritual, that is fine and dandy. But then they should act on those beliefs, whatever the personal cost.
It was told to me that if they didn't support who they were told to support, then the retaliation they faced, may have cost them money, property, or prestige.
If that is the case, and they buckled under the fear of some material loss, doesn't that make them nothing more than political hacks?
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.