Running Gator

Moore is not being tried in a court of law, he is being tried in the court of public opinion, as that is what election are. Was your response to the charges against Harvey Weinstein the same as they are for Moore?

A family friend who lives in Alabama just told my wife that a WAPO reporter named Beth offered her 1000$ to accuse Roy Moore First, a $1000 is not big bucks, even in Alabama. Second we have one unnamed person telling another unnamed person that something happened. Third, I went to the twitter page of the guy in this story and it seems there is not a conspiracy theory he does not believe. He is a birther who believes that Nixon pardoned McCain and that the Russians killed JFK.

No he has not. He has called it an attack and such, but he has never once said it was a lie. If he has I would ask you for a link. Even on Hannity he went so far as to say he used to "date younger women".

It is about the age differences between the men and the women in those stories

I still have not heard him or read where he has denied the allegations. For me his longtime friend and ally basically justifying the actions is the clincher. Clearly this guy thinks Moore did it

I tought that at first till I read this... From Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler Seems pretty clear he knew it happened. "Take the Bible: Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance," Zeigler said. "Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist. Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There's just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual." Also, this is Moore's first national office, being a Senator is way different than a State Justice

From all I have read, Moore has not denied the accusation. And one of his supporters used the story of Mary and Josheph and Elizabeth and Zachariah to defend Moore

My first reaction was "oh no, not another one". Over the last month (or has it even been that long) there has been a landslide of these accusations coming out against so many people. I will admit I have gotten to the point that I believe they are all true, no matter the political stance of the person, that is the one thing I do not take into account. I know it is wrong to assume they are guilty, but that is sort of the point I am at now.

It comes down to whether you believe for God's message is tied to individual words or to the ideas that they are presenting. If as you are saying it is that God has to control word for word and letter for letter the reproduction of His word for it to be "valid" then we have problem as the first KJV version had over 400 printing errors. Why did God allow those to happen? I do have a question for you and the other KJV only folks, is it your position that the Holy Spirit guided the translators of the KJV giving them the correct translation for each and every word?

I do not translate shop, I use one translation, the ESV. I reject this charge against me from you. Please provide proof that the T.R. was "perfect". By "the church" you are of course talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. You do not seem to be a big fan of the RCC. And the translators of the KJV were given instructions by King James that the translation had to conform to the views of the Church of England.

Well, then we have another problem. If appearance is the only correct translation for this word, as you are claiming, then why when the word is used 5 times in the New Testament did the KJV folks only translate it as appearance once out of those 5? Did they get it wrong the other 4 times?

I understand that is your opinion, but it is just that, an opinion.

Yes, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Any version of if that man is involved in is not perfect, as man is not perfect.

I agree with this (I think) In my opinion much of the battle between the KJV and non-KJV is due to individual verses being taken as stand alone ideas. I have often said that the worst thing to ever happen to the Bible was man adding verse numbering (if not chapter and verses). Because these exist people take individual sentences out of the bible and use them in a way they would never do with any other book. With the verse in question, if one were to read the whole chapter without the verses added I believe they would come to the same conclusion of what the passage is saying whether they read it in the KJV or the ESV.

I think people get this verse wrong because the KJV got it wrong. Had the KJV translated it as form vice appearance then there would not no controversy.

This is a fascinating mindset to me. So, if you say something is wrong, that is an attack on that thing. So, when you tell me I am wrong for saying the KJV got it wrong, you are attacking me? Is that correct? And you think when I tell you that you got something wrong, that I am attacking you? Is that correct?

The The Star-Spangled Banner is hardly from our "origins" as it did not become the national anthem till the 1930s. If you want to stay true to our origins we should be singing Hail, Columbia or maybe "My Country Tis of Thee"

So, back to the subject of the thread. My daughter lives half a country away and many of the people who know me do not know her or what she looks like. If I were to eat a meal with her in public people might not know she is my daughter, so would this fall under the banned list of actives for those that think this verse is all about appearances?

And yet I am told that the mere act of eating a meal in a public place with a woman not my spouse gives the appearance of evil.

The appearance of something, including if it appears evil is all in the eye of the beholder. You do not think it is possible that people saw from the distance Jesus speaking with a woman on her fifth husband (if I remember correctly) and started to gossip about it? If a man having a meal with a woman in a public place gives the appearance of evil (which I have been told 100 times does) then standing there in a public spot speaking to that woman would be a similar situation. Let me ask you this, if you were seen standing on the street corner speaking to a woman with a poor reputation, do you think that might cause people to gossip? This is the problem with this verse being about appearances, if you make it about appearances then you are allowing other humans to dictate your actions instead of God. I started this thread because of the "Spouse vs Friend" thread and some of the comments in there. At least on male in that thread stated he would not even stop and give a ride to woman he knew that was stranded on the side of the road with car issues due to how he views this verse. I find that absurd and totally the opposite of what Christ would do. I find it interesting that you view a disagreement with the KJV as an attack on it. You disagree with me, does that mean you are attacking me? Why would you consider me disagree with this word in the KJV as an attack? You know what is really interesting, I started this same thread on "Christianforums.com" using almost the exact same words and not a single person was offended and not a single person accused anyone of attacking anything. Some agreed with my view, some did not. But on this forum we have 36 pages of people going back and forth about things that have nothing to do with the topic and most of them are just attacking each other. Why does that happen here?

Me having a meal with a woman not my spouse or family member is not evil on the eyes of God, so then there should be no issue with it.

According to you and others, it appears evil for a man to be alone in public with a woman not his spouse or family member. Jesus was alone on public with a woman known to have a "low reputation" that was neither His spouse or family member.

God says to avoid all forms of evil. Jesus stood at the well talking alone to a woman of ill repute. That could have been seen by some that it is ok to mess around with such women. Was Jesus wrong for doing so?

According to you and others, it appears evil for a man to be alone in public with a woman not his spouse or family member. Jesus was alone on public with a woman known to have a "low reputation" that was neither His spouse or family member. Jesus did actions that appeared to break the Sabbath, this would be evil from a biblical understanding. Jesus did not care about appearances.

Can’t the Mods do anything about it?