King James Bible Discussion

Me

[WhatNot]

Please be advised:

This is a King James Bible Discussion thread,
and King James Bible verses will be visible for all to see.

[BlueDragon]

This thread does not belong in "religion forum" of FreeRepublic

Discussion of religious considerations overlapping with political sensibilities is not to be ghettoized. Not here.

Your thesis reads like a self-justifying blogger vanity commentary shrouding itself in religious terminology. Are you justifying "hate" in particular circumstances? It seems to me you are hiding behind KJV Bible when doing so.

What next? Will you attempt to equate House Freedom Caucus with the deeds of the Nicolaitans? You mentioned them both in the same comment. Were you trying to link the two in your postscript? God hates the deeds of the Nicolaitans...so therefore... you are fully justified in hating the deeds of the House Freedom Caucus? Is that it? Yes, or no?

Whatever happened to "Do not bear false witness"? Your each and every word has been well stocked with accusation & insinuations against, first; House Freedom Caucus, and then following (however high the next numbers would go) false accusations made towards most anyone who would question how you are using (and abusing) the religion forum of FreeRepublic to present (and justify!) your "hate" for HFC. The hate bleeds over onto forum members whenever they tell you; "hey, not so fast bub..."

You said;

The truth is one loves as much as one hates, the more a Christian loves God, the more he hates sin.

Then also you said;

I just believe it's hypocritical to support someone, who you mostly disagree with, and yet claim to stand on high moral ground in opposing that same person, when he does the things you knew full well he would do. If it was me, I would have sat on my hands during the vote, or I would have taken the day off, but that's just me.

I dealt with this aspect of your ongoing screed against HFC on the other thread;

When they agreed to offer their support for Ryan to be Speaker of the House, there wasn't all that much in way of alternative possibilities.

When they did eventually offer support (even under some terms Ryan forced out of them) they did not give up their own positions as Representatives of the Districts which they Constitutionally served as representatives of, when they did so, either.

They owed Ryan no undying faithful future support simply for the fact Ryan agreed to allow himself be pushed forward (by other Republicans) to be Speaker.

As something of a side note; we are advised to not drag disputes from thread to thread in the religion forum. BUT -- that is what you have done when creating this new thread and saying what you have on this "new" thread.

Fault on my own part in this, for following up and meeting the challenge that your misrepresentation of what was said to you on that other thread (which you also were OP of) is entirely predicated on your own not following the rules of the FR religion forum.

Previously my opposition to how you were going about this was also primarily due to how you had tried to make it a "caucus" thread --- which then would have yet more forum rules that need to be followed -- or else -- FR forum moderation and management is meaningless? Just "rules" for other people to follow?

Here's something else related to what I just said. You said;

I told people who were very angry with me, and who wanted me to leave the Religion forum forever

Way to go buddy! Leave out the all-important qualifiers to that request ---that you not post this kind of nonsense on the religion forum. I had said in reply #93 of that thread, more in full;

And you should be barred from "the range". There should be; No more starting threads in "religion forum" for you. Not until you are willing to abide by the rules.

Take it (any subsequent thread you may chose to OP) to Bloggers and Personal, or go see General Chat.

Meanwhile, when posting in the religion forum, do try to keep the personal insults, and editorial commentary regarding my own self (or anyone else too, for that matter) to your own self. Doing so makes it easier for everyone to abide by the rules and avoid flamewars.

Can you see the qualifying/limiting element within what I said? No more "threads" of this same nature it could go without further saying, and so should be understood. That is quite different than as you've here tried to make things out to have been, which was; that you should be forbidden forever, etc.,

There WERE and are significant limiting qualifiers included in what I was trying to get across to you. Don't you dare misrepresent my words and intents. To do so is a deadly form of bearing false witness. If you keep it up -- forcing me spend valuable time in efforts to correct the record -- let it be known by denizens of this forum that you're trolling -- possibly on purpose, to try to set as many as possibly you can entice to set themselves one against another.

What I was saying to you could be restated; until you do follow the religion forum rules, don't post threads there, on that forum (where we happen to be at the moment). If you intend to never do so (to never follow the rules) then that could equate to being "forever" as you just put it... and bloody well should be "forever", until you do follow this forum's rules.

Your "belief" that HFC is "hypocritical" for not giving unreserved support to whatever the Speaker chose to support is merely your own opinion, yet is not justified in this context, and should not be wrapped up in KJV Bible to then be presented on the religion forum of FreeRepublic. This is not a religious issue. This is more about YOU and your own opinions!

Take your next thread -- IFyou are going to continue accusing HFC of "hypocrisy" for them not voting as Paul Ryan would have desired them to --- to Bloggers and Personal -- where it more properly belongs. Or go see General Chat.

Meanwhile, since "hate" could now be justified (in certain circumstances?) would you be still justified in tut-tutting, saying "shame on you" to those who have grown to despise your recently adopted methodology? What if they "hate" you back? Since you are a sinner too -- should we hate-hate-hate you? (or just hate what you are doing, because of how you are going about it?)

Is that okiedokie OK with God now? Perhaps it is, which if so would then fully justify my own opposition to your words.

That opposition has all along been for reason of how you chose to present them (on the religion forum) rather than being more simply only my own opposition towards your expressed opinions. AGAIN: The religion forum of FR is not the proper platform for expressing these particular kinds of "opinion" you have, for those opinions have little to do with religious issues (or King James version of Bible more particularly) in ways that would qualify beginning a thread in the religion forum in order to express those opinions.

Maybe God is against your recent ways of using His name too? I know I am. To wrap yourself with King James Bible while expressing political opinion, in this instance --- appears to me to be taking His name in vain. That is MY opinion.

Try asking Him what He thinks of what you are doing here...

This next can go for most anyone (including myself of course), in most any situation;

When inquiring of the Lord, if all that is heard would be one's own thoughts -- then it should be obvious they would not be hearing from on high.

If not hearing from on Him, please refrain from even appearing to be speaking for Him. He hates it when people say "thus sayeth the Lord" when He said (nor intended) any such as was said. (Ezekiel 13:6) In other words: Don't wrap yourself in the Bible when talking about your own political opinions-- not unless you can make a better case than you have in the opening comments of this thread at the least!

Proverbs 6

16 These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:

17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,

18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Who is more in the wrong here? Myself, for pointing out that the way you are going about what you are doing (in moaning and complaining about House Freedom Caucus, accusing them of hypocrisy) -- or yourself wrapping yourself in "Bible" while justifying your own hateful words regarding what HFC has done, and the false accusations/misrepresentations you've been consistently making in regards to prior conversations on other threads?

Now, I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet you that the HFC supporters, who are so quick to dismiss HFC hypocrisy,

There was no "hypocrisy" on HFC's part for not supporting the Ryan/Trump proposed healthcare legislation. Your pet thesis relies upon what you say "you would have done" ---if you had been them, according to "rules" you have made up in your own head which you then, here in opening portion of this thread, have attempted to justify using Scripture. Men once "justified" enslaving other human beings using the King James Bible too. Should we all now be slaves to government rules forcing us to do business with insurance companies (on insurance companies terms, no less) while they hold our very existence hostage (so they can get the insurance money!) because the House Freedom Caucus owed to Paul Ryan (and President Trump) to support signing us all up for this kind of slavery?

It would have been more like approaching hypocrisy if the HVC HAD supported it. If they had done so -- that would have been for them to have lied to the voters who had elected them.

[boatbums]

The King James version of the Bible is incomplete. It had things added and subtracted from the original Vulgate (Catholic Latin) Bible by Luther.

The first English King James Bible contained the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books. So, your statement is incomplete. Additionally, the Vulgate was NOT the "original" Bible by Luther or anyone else. Luther translated the Hebrew and Greek texts into German - not Latin. So, strike two!

The first Bible was compiled by St. Jerome. Additionaly, the first Bible printed by the Gutenberg Press was the Catholic Bible.

Wrong again! Strike three. If by "Bible" you mean the books of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms along with the books written by the Apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ all being put together into one book and called "The Holy Bible", then there was the Septuagint - a Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures along with fifteen other Greek writings compiled around 200 B.C.

By approximately 500 BC, the 39 Books that make up the Old Testament were completed, and continued to be preserved in Hebrew on scrolls. As we approach the last few centuries before Christ, the Jewish historical books known as the “Apocrypha” were completed, yet they were recorded in Greek rather than Hebrew. By the end of the First Century AD, the New Testament had been completed. It was preserved in Greek on Papyrus, a thin paper-like material made from crushed and flattened stalks of a reed-like plant. The word “Bible” comes from the same Greek root word as “papyrus”. The papyrus sheets were bound, or tied together in a configuration much more similar to modern books than to an elongated scroll.

These groupings of papyrus were called a “codex” (plural: “codices”). The oldest copies of the New Testament known to exist today are: The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum Library in London, and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican. They date back to approximately the 300’s AD. In 315 AD, Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identified the 27 Books which we recognize today as the canon of New Testament scripture. (http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html)

[Becki]

1) That is a quote from Ghandi, but is sounds good.

True Ghandi said it, but it the saying as it is originated from St. Augustine.

True, again, it does not exist in the Bible in that form. However, Christ modeled it throughout his life. He condemned the sin, but loved and forgave the sinner as they repented. He forgave one thief on the cross, but not the other, so the burden is on the person to accept the truth.

We need to love people enough to tell them the truth. I do when I have the opportunity, small as it is. I have lost friends over it.

I hope I would have the courage to do so if my life was at stake. That kind of strength would have to come from God, though.

[Becki]

I have been wanting a good lexicon. Do you recommend Strong's?

Is there any other I should consider?

[Salvation]

BTTT! Well said.

[Salvation]

But there were still errors — “faith alone” — is one that Luther added to the Bible.

[boatbums]

How many more times will it have to be explained the reasons why Luther - and MANY other church "fathers" before him - translated Romans 3:28 using the word "alone"??? Do you ever read them?

If your defense is that this was an "error" - when it clearly was not an error - then what about the ACTUAL errors in the Vulgate? Like, for example, in Genesis:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15).

The Latin Vulgate Version changed the word HE to SHE:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (Douay-Rheims Version).

The Douay-Rheims has numerous errors like that, such as substituting the word "penance" when the correct word is "repentance" (metanoia is the Greek word). One of the worst errors the DR got from the Jerome's Vulgate was substituting the word "justice" when Scripture clearly said "righteousness". As in:

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed Elohim, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, (Romans 4:3).

Even as Abraham believed Elohim, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (Galatians 3:6).

St. Paul quotes from a verse about Abraham that proves this doctrine:

And he (Abraham) believed in JEHOVAH and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6).

But why does Jerome replace RIGHTEOUSNESS with JUSTICE:

Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice> (Douay-Rheims Version).

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God: and it was reputed to him unto justice. (Douay-Rheims Version).

There are quite a few more. Shall I go on or will this also be ignored?

[boatbums]

JMHO...Abraham Lincoln was talking about the Bible in general, not necessarily the KJV, though that was probably the version he read in English.

[boatbums]

Martin Luther didn't know what he was talking about if he indeed said that. The Catholic church tried for centuries to destroy the true Word of God. If it wasn't for the Greek Orthodox churches, the Anabaptist, Waldeneses, and others like them who preserved the actual Word of God, we wouldn't have the true Word of God in the King James version.

Don't fall for the trap the Roman Catholics set with this snippet of an out-of-context quote from Luther. You can read here what he actually said and why http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-infallible-church-declared.html

[ducttape45]

To properly discuss that statement one would need to realize that the catholic church derives their scripture from a totally difference set of manuscripts than those which the King James Bible is based on, the Vaticanus. The inquisitions were all about destroying the manuscripts kept hidden from the catholic church, trying to prevent them from being used, the Majority Text, or what later came to be known as the Textus Receptus.

[HeadOn]

“Naw, it’s all in the context...Sometimes hate means hate...”

You are correct in my thinking, about the context. I think that’s the point of the discussion. Using ONLY our modern definition of hate (or other words we use now) is a problem if we are not careful. The original languages have other meanings sometimes.

(Iscool, I know you are not necessarily agreeing with the original poster, so the following is just to explain myself.)

How about these verses, in which Jesus clearly describes our modern connotation of “hate”, but doesn’t use the word?:

Matthew 5:21,22

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Surrounded by the rest of the Sermon on the Mount’s verses in which Jesus equates lust with adultery, he says here that the emotion we call hate is equal to murder. For me, this gives me great pause. I rarely feel the modern “hate” for anyone, even really, really bad people. When I do, I confess it.

[PeterPrinciple]

) That is a quote from Ghandi, but is sounds good.

---

It is a partial truth and creates much confusion and is thus to be avoided. What is Ghandi’s purpose in saying it? What does the world hear when it is said. What do many Christians hear and think when they say it? It is poor doctrine.

1) To many the word love means toleration. Not have to confront the sin.

2) If you say that to a homosexual or other sinner, you still hate him. He IS the sin. His identity is the sin. The phrase is meaning less but it sounds so nice.

3) Now having said the above, my objection is, it is too simple of a response to complicated situations, especially to “milk drinkers”. It is a one size fits all that we find too much comfort in saying and doing. What is the application to a fellow Christian? What is the application to a non Christian?

You appear to be a “meat eater” but we must both remember that milk is still good for the spiritual diet. Thanks for the iron sharpening.

[WhatNot]

[WhatNot]

Agreed.

[WhatNot]

Not at all, this may of been one of the first that strayed into that arena, and it was simply motivated by current events.

[WhatNot]

Thanks, for adding your testimony, very inspiring.

[WhatNot]

Thanks, for adding to the discussion, the topics are meant to do just that.

[WhatNot]

[WhatNot]

[Zuriel]

Pointing out errors in translation is commendable. Taking verses, and building a doctrine that is misleading, is not commendable.

Saying that the words, ‘righteousness’ and ‘justice’, do not mean the same thing in the context that they are being used, seems a little bit nit picky; because, the phrase ‘justified by faith’ is found only a few verses earlier (Rom. 3:28).

My complaint is the quoting of Rom. 4:3, with disregard to the circumstances of that reference (Gen. 15:6).

You folks that believe that faith is without flinching a muscle, ignore that by the time Abram was given that testimony, he had (under orders) traveled over 400 miles to the promised land (the hard way), and built two altars. He received blessing from Melchizedek when?....after a 300 mile round trip which included a hasty pursuit, a night battle, and a return home. Then, after he is promised for the third time (four, if you count “make of thee a great nation”, in Gen. 12:2), comes the testimony from God found in Gen. 15:6.