pointer

I noted this in my Scripture reading a couple of weeks ago...

I was wondering what you all might think about it..

I find it a pretty interesting Scripture...

Just curious ....

Job 35:6 If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him? or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto him?

Job 35:7 If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?

Job 35:8 Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.

There's a very important point here, imv, that we sin against God only in that we sin against ourselves and, particularly, other people.

'Then Elihu said: "Do you think this is just? You say, 'I will be cleared by God.' Yet you ask him, 'What profit is it to me, and what do I gain by not sinning?"'

"I would like to reply to you and to your friends with you. Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? If you are righteous, what do you give to him, or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness affects only a man like yourself, and your righteousness only the sons of men."' Job 35:1-8 NIV

This reminds me of:

'"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."' Acts 17:24-25 NIV

I think it's been an unusually interesting thread, worth our contemplation, and I would like to thank all posters for their contributions.

I knew you were being sarcastic about Muhammed.

But you tried to pretend that you took me literally, and took the opportunity to call me a heretic, as well as a homosexual?

"When you can't win, smear." Not a worthy motto. Or is it?

I don't claim to be fluent in Greek and Hebrew. Homosexuals and cult leaders often learn these languages and then claim those who aren't fluent in them aren't qualified to speak

How would you know that they knew any Hebrew or Greek? Maybe they were ordinary guys who took you for a sap, and had some fun at your expense.

You wouldn't have known I didn't have a GNB if I didn't tell you now would you

And it's not surprising if people have fun at your expense. You shouldn't have told me.

Too late now.

Only an idiot would have thought I took you literal.

I'm not going to be really silly and take your post seriously.

Prosperity

PROSPER'ITY, n. [L. prosperitas.] Advance or gain in any thing good or desirable; successful progress in any business or enterprise; success; attainment of the object desired

It is not wrong for a man of God to be wealthy, I know that is probably about the 12th time that was said, I am not gong to give the verses either, that has been done to.

The New Testament contains more scripture envolving money than anyother topic. This is why we have prosperity preachers.

America has prosperity preachers for the same reason that Britain had 'God-given' social class distinction in the Victorian era, encapsulated in the lines of the hymn that everyone knew:

The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

He made them, high or lowly,

And ordered their estate.

The unevenly distributed wealth inherent in capitalism, and the Biblical basis of Protestantism, were both at their greatest extent in Britain, and made for embarrassment and angst. The USA has inherited the same Protestantism, indeed an even more Bible based form of it, and even more wealth, due to the vast agricultural bonanza that has sustained unprecedented riches. So the tension is even greater in today's USA.

The USA has no castles, no landed gentry, nor opportunity for a merchant class to imitate one, and the prosperity movement is the American solution for those who have a form of religion, but deny its power.

I knew you were being sarcastic about Muhammed.

But you tried to pretend that you took me literally, and took the opportunity to call me a heretic, as well as a homosexual?

"When you can't win, smear." Not a worthy motto. Or is it?

I don't claim to be fluent in Greek and Hebrew. Homosexuals and cult leaders often learn these languages and then claim those who aren't fluent in them aren't qualified to speak

How would you know that they knew any Hebrew or Greek? Maybe they were ordinary guys who took you for a sap, and had some fun at your expense.

You wouldn't have known I didn't have a GNB if I didn't tell you now would you

And it's not surprising if people have fun at your expense. You shouldn't have told me.

Too late now.

God has the power and did preserve his Word in the KJV. It has no errors in it.

O wise judge, O fount of knowledge. Yes, Gabriel spoke to Muhammad, too.

I disagree with your claim about knowing other languages. That is the same argument homosexuals and other heretics use to try to discredit those who challenge their positions.

Homosexuals rarely know a single word of Greek or Hebrew, and when they try it they get it spectacularly wrong! It's something they have in common with KJVOers!

You asked for two examples from the GNB of abominations.

Not from you, dear soul. Ducking and diving does nothing for the cred of KJVO, y'know.

I would imagine if you read any Bible version to a 4 year old, they would have trouble fully comprehending what you are saying.

You could read the KJV to anyone and not guarantee that they would understand much! That was King James' little ruse. A 4 y.o. has much more chance with the GNB, which was not available when I was 4, and that is Satan's work, which he will pay very dearly for.

I am glad you have finally come to see it my way about the KJV being without error, but your belief that Gabriel spoke to Muhammad is heretical.

My tongue was in my cheek, old fellow. Read it again.

I have run across more than one homosexual who knew Hebrew and Greek fluently and used that argument to fend off all critics.

So are you saying that the Bible supports homosexuality, Butero? Surprising King James didn't pick up on that.

I never saw you put a name on who was supposed to give you the verses from the GNB.

As you don't possess a GNB, it was pretty daft to even think of replying. I suspect you simply wanted to avoid the torrent of embarrassing questions for your own view.

A 4 year old might understand more from the GNB than the KJB, but what they got would be less accurate.

You can't say anything, because if you knew any Greek or Hebrew, you would be like the homosexuals!

God has the power and did preserve his Word in the KJV. It has no errors in it.

O wise judge, O fount of knowledge. Yes, Gabriel spoke to Muhammad, too.

I disagree with your claim about knowing other languages. That is the same argument homosexuals and other heretics use to try to discredit those who challenge their positions.

Homosexuals rarely know a single word of Greek or Hebrew, and when they try it they get it spectacularly wrong! It's something they have in common with KJVOers!

You asked for two examples from the GNB of abominations.

Not from you, dear soul. Ducking and diving does nothing for the cred of KJVO, y'know.

I would imagine if you read any Bible version to a 4 year old, they would have trouble fully comprehending what you are saying.

You could read the KJV to anyone and not guarantee that they would understand much! That was King James' little ruse. A 4 y.o. has much more chance with the GNB, which was not available when I was 4, and that is Satan's work, which he will pay very dearly for.

Could you provide an example or two of abominations of the GNB? It seems to me to have been produced in that balmy time when the devil was caught unawares by modern versions, and since then has smuggled in more and more horrible heresies.

I would argue that no new translation caught the devil off guard since he is the inspiration behind them.

Of course you would! What you possibly can't see is that King James was not entirely uninfluenced by Satan, worldliness and avarice. There is no published translation that is anything like perfect, even when there is no political pressure (which is never yet), and the KJV translators said so about their own efforts. Those who know nothing of original languages have absolutely nothing to say about that.

I already answered your other questions.

You haven't really started, just written blether, and I now assume you have no answers.

While I have read passages from the GNB in the past, I don't own a copy to make examples from.

I didn't ask you. Can you try to answer the appropriate posts, please?

By the way, my Grandmother gave me a King James Bible as a child, and I could read it with no problem at age 11. It is not that difficult to do.

I know. I read it perfectly to my sister when I was four. But reading is not understanding, as those who are actually engaged in mission professionally know very well indeed.

Butero and I agree on most everything, except the veracity and accuracy of the NIV. It is, in fact, an excellent translation--as good as any modern version can be. The continuing holding on to the archaic and arcane KJV is a little disturbing. I don't know of too many Biblical scholars who consider the kJV to be a scholarly representation of the original, except for those who desperately hold to the KJV-Only mentality. I read the KJV, but do not consider it superior to the NIV, but it certainly is superior to the LB, GNB and the parade of really lousy "modern" translations/paraphrases.

Now, the word "abomination" comes to mind when thinking of the Good News Bible (the one with the stick figures in it) and the truly heinous Message. Blech.

The NIV is considered very good, but also very bad, by many scholars, and needs watching carefully. I agree about the LB.

Could you provide an example or two of abominations of the GNB? It seems to me to have been produced in that balmy time when the devil was caught unawares by modern versions, and since then has smuggled in more and more horrible heresies.

The only real solution is original languages. As evangelicalism is largely apostate today, and very few preachers bother to teach from them, an interlinear and lexicon is a very good start.

I don't see it as the Word of God. I see it as a tainted version of the Bible. It contains some truth and some lies. No, I am not claiming that those who draw closer to God in spite of a false translation are an abomination.

If they believe lies, they must be an abomination, unless the lies are of scant importance. Are KJVOers significantly better Christians than those who read any other version? Are they better Christians that those who read Scripture in original languages?

If so, how are they better? If not, why aren't they?

Utter rubbish. Most people leave their Bibles on a shelf collecting dust so the translation makes little difference there.

I think most of them are KJVs in presentation cases given as presents on special occasions. There are countless very well worn NIVs, GNBs, NKJVs and Living Bibles out there, though. There are schools and churches that stock NRSVs that get very frequent use, and people do not fork out good money for a NLT just because it looks pretty. But there are, I suppose, people under 80 years old who actually read the KJV for private devotions, though I don't know any personally. Presumably you do. Do you consider that the pure, untainted KJV produces more spiritual persons than lesser translations produce? Are NIV readers particularly abominable? If not, is it possible that your assessment is incorrect?

In the cases where people read from new translations, and "draw closer to God," I would say so what? Most of these same people are getting their actual doctrine from a tv minister or pastor of a church.

The very same goes for KJVO people. More so, I would say, as the KJV seems to be more fervently favoured by a certain sort of preacher than by Christians as a whole.

Very few read the Bible without the aid of commentaries, etc. so the conclusions they come to are the result of other's labour, for better or worse.

That goes for KJV readers at least as much as other readers. It seems to me, from long experience, that a lot of people did not know what their KJVs actually said until the NIV came along, and they did not enjoy the revelation.

It is possible to reach someone on the mission field and have no Bible to be able to give them, yet they can seek the Lord daily in prayer and still draw closer to him.

Of course. One missioner recently told me that he would not use the KJV in mission unless he wanted to put people off for life. I don't think he is atypical at all.

As far as the question of are KJO believers better Christians, that is a loaded question. Not everyone is a doer of the Word. Many are hearers only. As such, it is possible that a person with no Bible can live a better life than one with a Bible.

The question is not loaded, the reply is completely irrelevant. However, it could appear from this reply that, for some religious people, a non-believer could be preferable to a believer with a modern Bible.

There are unfortunately Christians who have no Bible, but all Christians love the Bible, and read it frequently, if they have one.

As far as reading the original language, once again irrelivant. The only way this argument holds up is if the person reading the original language is reading from the textus receptus used by the KJV translators.

So why is second best accepted? Why not use Greek for the NT, which has been the evangelical standard since evangelicalism and indeed Protestant scholarship arose? Why are we even talking translations for adults? It would seem insane to evangelicals of a generation ago, I can assure you.

Of course, this is assuming that the TR is superior to the Critical Text or the other sources used by almost all modern translators, which may not be the case. This argument does not apply to the OT, of course, and the KJV has no advantage here. Why is the KJV superior in the OT?

What is wrong with the NKJV, which you were asked about?

And do KJVOers really expect 11 year olds to read the KJV?

If not, then the person using the KJV Bible will come out with more truth. In addition, it still comes down to who chooses to follow the Word and not just understand it as to who makes the better Christian.

So one can be a satisfactory Christian believing lies? Why does the choice of translation matter at all?

i think it's an abomination that people pass judgement and say that the NIV is an abomination. it's a version that millions of people have used to get closer to God. so essentially anyone who is KJV only is saying that if someone is drawing closer to God is doing it in a way that they (the kjv crowd) doesn't approve of, then the seeker's relationship with God is abominable.

somehow i don't think God would appreciate such arrogance.

i'll say this again. the word of God never comes back void.

I don't see it as the Word of God. I see it as a tainted version of the Bible. It contains some truth and some lies. No, I am not claiming that those who draw closer to God in spite of a false translation are an abomination.

If they believe lies, they must be an abomination, unless the lies are of scant importance. Are KJVOers significantly better Christians than those who read any other version? Are they better Christians that those who read Scripture in original languages?

If so, how are they better? If not, why aren't they?

I would heartily endorse the Good News Bible as it is good for young people or low reading level Bible students. It is less likely to fall into the errors of both the NIV and The Message.

I would agree with you entirely, except for the word 'low'. There are now Bibles written specifically for people of low reading ability, but the GNB is not at all in that category. It was written partly to offset criticism of the Bible brought about by existing English Bibles, namely the KJV and RSV, which were famously and increasingly the object of criticism and even ridicule for difficult sentence construction and archaisms, particularly the KJV. So the GNB was intentionally easy to read, but it was aimed at people of ordinary, but not defective, education. It may be that reading skills have improved over the last few decades, and more people can now take in the NIV more easily, and make use of its greater technical accuracy. The GNB has no serious compromises as 'low ability' versions tend to have, and the scholar can read it with as much interest as any other translation (and quite possibly more!).

We should remember that the NT, at least, was not written by scholars for scholars, and is in quite ordinary Greek, for the most part. There is no particular value in esotericism, anyway.

Atheists don't believe in telekinesis, theists do. It's theists that believe in an unproven God who can do anything without any evidence whatsoever. It's theists that believe a rod can turn into snakes or that water can become water. It's theists that believe that the supernatural can impregnate a human . Theists keep claiming proof about God because the universe appears orderly.

Some might, but they may not be telling the truth. Other theists believe that a rod can turn into snake, but only because of testimony about Jesus. These theists experience a change in their lives that gives them an entirely new perspective on life, and how it should be lived. Drunkards become sober, thieves become honest, rebels become peaceable, enemies become friends, laggards become hard workers, and so on, because of the message about Jesus. These 'new creatures' are a sign to others that Jesus really exists, though not visibly at the present, and they become theists too. They believe that Jesus will return, and they likewise believe that Jesus has intervened in history to make sticks into snakes. They believe that Jesus made both sticks and snakes in the first place, and that if he wants to change one into the other, and back again, he can. It is nothing to him.

Atheism means without evidence. Is it too much to ask for some? Believing does not make something true.

Atheism means 'no deity'. It is an idea that cannot be proved by formal logic; but neither can theism. It is practical results in real, live people that 'prove' that there is a deity, if anything does.

Good, except that there are no errors in the NIV...

All published English translations contain errors, or deliberate changes of meaning. One has a choice of errors- unless one uses original languages.

I said that if you answered if you were a Christian or not, I'd deal with your arguments.

So do you have different arguments for different people?

Well this is quite revealing. Shouldn't you be in the non-believer category then?

Why was I asked? Do you know? Because I don't have the first clue.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe because everything you've said has been unscriptural? Or that you've been beligerent and uncooperative? Maybe because your behavior is unbecoming of a Christian? Or because you've had no idea what you're talking about? Or maybe it's been your refusal to answer the question directly? I dunno..take your pick.

None of those. It is because people cannot deal with my arguments, so they try to get me thrown out.

Well this is quite revealing. Shouldn't you be in the non-believer category then?

Why was I asked? Do you know? Because I don't have the first clue.

Tell you want, i will provide evidence that Jesus saves us, from the Bible, if you answer if you are a Christian or not.

You won't. Nobody has to believe the Bible.

Yes, you must believe the Bible, because the Bible is where we find the gospel.

We might well believe the gospel because someone worthy told it to us. That does not mean that we have to believe the Bible as a whole. And nobody has to believe because there is proof, because there is no proof.

Not talking about proof. We have assurance without needing "proof." The Bible says that we can know we are saved today. However, the Bible is where the gospel is found. Even if you hear by word of mouth, you have to believe the gospel and the gospel is found in the Bible. No matter how you cut it, the Bible is our final authority and the source of all faith and practice for the Christian. If you don't believe the Bible, then it is unlikely that you are a Christian.

You've got it backwards. It is the Holy Spirit in the saint who recognises and defines the Bible. It is the saint's good works that 'prove' the truth; but false teachers have none of those.

Which, oddly enough, brings us back to the thread topic.

Only imposters have something to hide.

What an egregious joke! People are not Christians because they say they are. False teachers don't go round telling people that they are not Christians, do they.

If you are a true Christian, you would say you are... unless you are ashamed of being a Christian, or you want to hide the fact that you are not a Christian. Its up to you. Your silence on the question is only incriminating you further.

Incrimination is for people who cannot win a single argument to save their lives, shiloh, and are thus reduced to pretty asinine accusations.

Tell you want, i will provide evidence that Jesus saves us, from the Bible, if you answer if you are a Christian or not.

You won't. Nobody has to believe the Bible.

Yes, you must believe the Bible, because the Bible is where we find the gospel.

We might well believe the gospel because someone worthy told it to us. That does not mean that we have to believe the Bible as a whole. And nobody has to believe because there is proof, because there is no proof.

Only imposters have something to hide.

What an egregious joke! People are not Christians because they say they are. False teachers don't go round telling people that they are not Christians, do they.

Tell you want, i will provide evidence that Jesus saves us, from the Bible, if you answer if you are a Christian or not.

You won't. Nobody has to believe the Bible.

Assume all you want, I could care less. I'll assume you aren't a Christian since you won't answer.

Big deal!

What, that you're a Christian? Are you a Christian?

Prove that Jesus saves Christians, using the Bible or not.

Only until you state if you are a Christian or not.

I assume you can't do it.

What, that you're a Christian? Are you a Christian?

Prove that Jesus saves Christians, using the Bible or not.