Takoda

bafflegab [ baf-uh l-gab ]SHOW IPA / ˈbæf əlˌgæb /PHONETIC RESPELLING WORD ORIGIN noun Slang. confusing or generally unintelligible jargon; gobbledegook: an insurance policy written in bafflegab impenetrable to a lay person.

I call that a success story. Congratulations.

You didn't answer my question but instead threw up a wall of bafflegab.

The King James Version of the New Testament along with earlier versions like the Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai Bible, in 1582 - 1610 were based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Where and when did God say this?

This falls into the category of wishful thinking.

Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology. The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer. First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds. What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail. How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings. Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later. Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV) Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV) Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV) Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV) Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV) Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV) Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV) Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV) Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV) Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV) Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV) Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV) Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV) Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV) Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB) The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC. This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century. The earth became the center of the universe with the moon and then the sun and then the planets, with complicated epicycles, and then the “fixed” stars all in orbit around it. This was the cosmology accepted by Christianity until the revolution of Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton. This was resisted by Christianity largely on the basis that the earth was not the center of God’s creation. In a relatively short time even this scientific insight was not only accepted but accepted to the extent that the biblical cosmology of a flat earth was rejected. The flat earth was not only rejected but ridiculous arguments were even invented to suggest that the bible was not even suggesting a flat earth at all. Such, all too often, is the way some Christians react to new understandings and insights. Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.

What is a "Catholic Orthodox Church"? Perhaps you meant "Catholic or Orthodox"? If one did so they would be worshipping with fellow Christians, so I see no reason why not.

in 1972 after 7 years my first wife took off with another man. I was devastated. In retrospect it was a very good thing. My second wife and I celebrated our 43rd wedding anniversary just a week ago. Life goes on.

After 76 years I have encountered a few but they are quite rare. What is much more common are those whose conscience has been poorly formed.

Please don't get me going on what I think of TV most evangelists.

I was simply trying to be helpful and I regret that I upset you. Your post was difficult to read and understand because you repeated yourself a number of times. I am certainly not perfect and have posted enough confusing posts myself that I have gotten into the habit of checking before I post.

I have always found it helpful to review and if necessary edit a post before sending it off.

I am a Christian, not an atheist, but I have no trouble envisioning the universe itself as eternal.

Hebrews 12:16-17 New International Version (NIV) 16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17 Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done. I agree that these verses are problematic in that they seem to suggest even sincere repentance is useless.

"When names are called for crowns in heaven, they will be the nameless hidden saints among us. They may not be called Christians. They just love God." ~~~ Billy Graham (Ottawa 1999)

There are several problems with this statement. In the first place, God did not issue three curses --- he issued just two, one on the serpent and one on the earth. Adam and Eve were not cursed. Secondly, Satan makes no appearance in Genesis. The antagonist (in the literary sense) is the serpent who apparently was annoyed by not being chosen as Adam's companion.

America is indeed under threat --- from the President. I pray that the USA can survive this presidency without losing its democracy and its moral integrity. Franklin Graham is more a part of the problem than he is part of the solution.

Alligators and sharks attack people because they are hungry and humans are perceived as food. There is nothing malevolent about this at all.

I have always thought it very strange that we accept as characteristic of God that which we find as a failing or even an evil in mankind.

We envision a creator who was uncreated and has no beginning and yet we have no solid evidence that this is true. But we do have solid evidence of the reality of our physical universe. Why does the universe need a beginning? I see no compelling reason why not.

You have a strange idea of blasphemy.

This depends on what you mean by swearing or cursing. To swear means to invoke either God or something you regard as sacred to attest to your truthfulness. To swear on a Bible as a witness in court is an example. to do so frivolously is certainly questionable but to do so in an intent to deceive is certainly sinful. To curse means to invoke either God or something you regard as sacred to call down evil upon someone else. To say "God damn you!" is an example. To do so in a moment of anger is certainly questionable but do so and actually mean it in a literal way is certainly sinful. However those two terms are frequently used to refer to vulgar speech or potty mouth or what are referred to as four letter words and this is an entirely different matter. Many people do so habitually without a second thought. I find this distasteful but I hesitate to call it sinful. Some background might be helpful for English speakers. In AD 1066 the Normans conquered England. Almost immediately the French speaking Normans tried to suppress the Anglo-Saxon language. This was strongly resisted and today almost a thousand years later perfectly normal Anglo-Saxon words for body parts and functions still survive. They started as a form of subversive speech and still serve that same function today.

The path of the sun across the shy has not changed but the climate is certainly changing. The intensity of the sun has to do with the ozone layer which has been degraded by atmospheric pollutants. In my area, we are seeing warmer winters and wetter and windier springs. And man do I mean WINDIER!! The world is changing and we are largely to blame and yet we are still in denial and failing to act.

I have not heard this before and, quite frankly, it astonishes me because if it happens in Alaska it has to be happening all over the world. Is there any scientific confirmation for this?