inflation

[Mike Mclees]

On 10/18/2021 at 7:21 AM, kwikphilly said:

Blessings Mike

   Its awful,this administration is just destroying this Country...There has been a domino effect of catastrophe created from his 1st week in office

   On a good note did you know Gov DeSantis has openly invited all cargo ships to come to Florida ports & they will be taken care of,we've plenty of room in all our ports to handle all the ships coming in and we'll help get those products out to all over the USA   Im sure you heard,you live in Florida too,yes?  I'm so glad we have Gov Ron

   California & NY are just a disaster,what is going on there ?   If course it impacts every one of us and the inflation is outrageous,the pack of meat I bought last month for $3.99 was  $7.99 this week! And of course everything else was sky high too,though our shelves down here are full...how about up your way?

                                                                                                            With love-in Christ,Kwik

  

my brand of cat food is gone at Publix. I went to Dollar General today to stock up on toilet paper. They still had plenty.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Mike

    Oh my goodness, I forgot all about that-the cat food section is very very sparse at my Publix too.... a month or so ago I stopped looking as Ive been buying it elsewhere.... Funny, you mentioned that- purina? Fancy feast medleys & sheba cuts for mine- empty!

 

[Mike Mclees]

On 10/18/2021 at 10:10 AM, missmuffet said:

I think our Lord is preparing this world for the 7 year tribulation. 

Thank you so much Missmuffet. I knew i could count on you for this reminder. I'm  very sure that you are right about preparing us for the day of His wrath so we should be ready as a bride in waiting for their Groom. Lets look once more at the final seven years since its a vital part of all that we are being prepared for. After all we would not want anyone to have blood on our hands. All that is going on in the world now is a vital part. I thank you now for you cooperation.  

Would you do me this favor. Pull up 2 scripture for me. (Matt 24: 15 and Daniel 9:27.)       something seems missing with pre- trib interpretation. With seeing the time as it is we can't afford mistakes. I'm wondering what can it be?  I would do it myself but if you do it I'm sure it will have better impact.  could you please use the KJV. I'm sure myself and others  would like to be sure of correct interpretation that is bedrock.   May God bless and praying for a wonderful Thanks Giving for you and your family.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Mike Mclees

[missmuffet]

1 minute ago, Mike Mclees said:

Thank you so much Missmuffet. I knew i could count on you for this reminder. I'm  very sure that you are right about preparing us for the day of His wrath so we should be ready as a bride in waiting for their Groom. Lets look once more at the final seven years since its a vital part of all that we are being prepared for. After all we would not want anyone to have blood on our hands. All that is going on in the world now is a vital part. I thank you now for you cooperation.  

Would you do me this favor. Pull up 2 scripture for me. (Matt 24: 15 and Daniel 9:27.)       something seems missing with pre- trib interpretation. With seeing the time as it is we can't afford mistakes. I'm wondering what can it be  I would do it myself but if you do it I'm sure it will have better impact.  could you please use the KJV. I'm sure myself and others  would like to be sure of correct interpretation that is bedrock.   May God bless and praying for a wonderful thanks Giving for you and your family.

First of all I don't use the KJV and other versions of the Bible are correct as well. 

Matthew 24:15 is the second coming of Christ. It has nothing to do with the rapture of the Church. 

[Mike Mclees]

10 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

First of all I don't use the KJV and other versions of the Bible are correct as well. 

Matthew 24:15 is the second coming of Christ. It has nothing to do with the rapture of the Church. 

I sorry but It really does. It has everything to do with it . What version do you  use? Could we have a look at the one you use. I would be most grateful.

[missmuffet]

3 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

I sorry but It really does. It has everything to do with it . What version do you  use? Could we have a look at the one you use. I would be most grateful.

Are you a KJV only believer?

[Mike Mclees]

1 minute ago, missmuffet said:

Are you a KJV only believer?

Pretty much so . We should cross reference. Yours  still could say what we need, but we won't know unless we look. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[missmuffet]

6 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

Pretty much so . We should cross reference. Yours  still could say what we need, but we won't know unless we look. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.
The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

https://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by missmuffet

[Mike Mclees]

7 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.
The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

https://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

 

Do you believe. Do you believe the wording of the Bible you use to be correct. If you do then I would like to see anyway or just tell me what version you use. I will look it up myself. It appears you are scapegoating. If you are than you should not be here  making  remarks about your doctrine based on your bible version. How eveer you have my interest. What Bible version do you use?   

[missmuffet]

2 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

Do you believe. Do you believe the wording of the Bible you use to be correct. If you do then I would like to see anyway or just tell me what version you use. I will look it up myself. It appears you are scapegoating. If you are than you should not be here  making  remarks about your doctrine based on your bible version. How eveer you have my interest. What Bible version do you use?   

I believe the version of the Bible I use is correct. That is between myself and God.