Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor-TTers?
the Key is the knowledge we have of Christ DAVEH: That's an interesting perspective, Dean. Though I understand it differently, thanx for sharing it. you refused the keys of grace in lue of another set of keys that the Devil sent. DAVEH: I respectfully disagree, Dean. they were giving the keys to heaven DAVEH: As I see it, the Bible says he gave the keys to Peter. What leads you to believe he gave it to otherscd: cd: The way I see it the Key is the knowledge we have of Christ-in essence his is the key/way/light /redeemer/...etc. We free people with the outpourings of our grace(keys) Christ has giving us-And if that grace is rejected they are bound by our words spokenabout that grace. As you are bound to a devil hell for rejection that grace for love of Smith/ and the pleasure you receive for Mormon involvement. In short you refused the keys of grace in lue of another set of keys that the Devil sent. But hey-Is he such a bad guy after all? He tried right? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books) -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
DAVEH: What you think I've learned about Protestants, and what I have learned about Protestants are two different things, Lance. Lance Muir wrote: Amen CPL!! What's up with that Dave? You just finished saying what you'd learned of Protestants (and those like 'em) on TT. Are you reading for understanding or, just to critique? - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 18, 2005 12:28 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Dave, why are you arguing with Christians who many many times have told you that we believe, from scripture, that God the Father is a Spirit? You keep trying to argue with Christians on that point, which you have asked and heard the answer over and over. If you really want to know what "protestants" believe, then accept that fact, and accept the scriptures that are repeatedly used to demonstrate that to you. remeber, we get are facts from the Bible, not extra-biblical heretical works. When you continue to ask us over and over and over why we don't think God the Father has flesh and bones, you are no longer trying to learn, and are flat out ignoring what you have been told over and over...at that point you are trying to convince us otherwise. That is called proselytizing, which you claim you are not here to do! Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
DH is learning DAVEH: And I am indebted to you for teaching me a lot, Kevin. Kevin Deegan wrote: DH is learning Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. BUT he is also RESISTING Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. Men who are reprobate concerning the faith once delivered have CORRUPT Minds. They fight resist the Truth to their own destruction. Their minds are not even able to process the truth, since they throw any evidence that does not FIT their cult house of cards to the wayside thereby the DECIEVE their own selves how sad Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you DH is having a blast Sporting with you folks... -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin
DAVEH: I don't know that I would use the term..having a blast sporting with us... Lance, but I will admit to very much enjoying most of my exchanges with other TTers. Not only have I learned a lot during my tenure here, but it is a different change of pace from what I normally do during the day. I view it almost like therapy. In a sense I suppose it does seem like a sport to me, though I'm not proud of thinking about it that way. One particular aspect of TT I enjoy is the opportunity it affords to respond with tongue in cheek (as the Pastor of TT likes to put it) at times. But I suspect much of what I say goes right over the heads of some. And for others, it probably gets deleted without being read. (Which is the main reason they put the DELETE key on the keyboard.) It rather surprises me that some TTers seem to lack a sense of humor, although even g has exhibited some recently. (And Dean has actually started turning into a real human being with his recent funny comments!) So perhaps my perception is worse than reality. I think some TTers view it their mission to convert Mormons, and don't find anything to smile about when they find it tougher than expected to convert this one. As for meI simply don't have that irritation gnawing me in the butt. :-) Furthermore, I've really enjoyed the mental exercise it gives me to dig through the Scriptures more than I've done in the past. Without such antagonism about what I believe, there would be little reason for me to question much of what I've previously accepted without question. Now I have a better understanding of the theological nature of Mormonism, and how much stronger it is than I had previously imagined. For many LDS folks, Mormon culture is very appealing and sufficient reason to remain LDS regardless of how they view the doctrinal implications. So I really appreciate gaining a better understanding of the doctrines that drive the culture. Without TTers testing the metal (so to speak), there would be little reason for me be concerned with the hardcore theological arguments proposed by LDS theology. And finallyI suspect what I am now going to say is not going to be well received by some TTers, but my testimony has actually been strengthened by what some TTers post..and for that, I am very thankful. May the Lord bless you and other TTers who've been kind to me over the years. Lance Muir wrote: 'twouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if he was. HOWEVER, DaveH, I should like to have you, before your god, tell us 'folks' whether you are or are not 'having a blast sporting with us'. A whole lot of virtual ink could be saved by Kevin, CPL, et al were this to be the case. PLEASE NOTE DAVEH THAT THIS IS ADDRESSED TO YOU IN PERSON!! -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
[TruthTalk] Re:DAVE HANSEN
So then Dave, even if one were to substantiate charges of malfeasance against Joseph Smith, the BoM would not, by extension, be subject to question From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 20, 2005 17:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons DAVEH: Please repost it. I vaguely remember it, and also vaguely remember responding to part of it, but assumed that the comment IFF Joseph Smith goes then, you all go was mostly rhetorical. LDS folks usually consider the BoM to be the keystone of our religion, as per JS's suggestion. >From our perspective, any man can fall. But the BoM is a step up the ladder (so to speak) from JS.Lance Muir wrote: Yes. I did a second post concerning a 'house of cards' framework vis a vis groups which stand or fall based upon the legitimacy of a central figure or figures. I referenced 'solipsism' (a philosophy). Example: IFF Joseph Smith goes then, you all go. It was longer than this but, along this line. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 20, 2005 12:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons Now, as to 'Dear Mormons, part deux'?DAVEH: ??? Help me out Lance.to what are you referring? Did I overlook something?Lance Muir wrote: Thanks. This is helpful. Now, as to 'Dear Mormons, part deux'? L - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 19, 2005 22:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons DAVEH: I found it on my second computer, Lance! At the risk of getting Perry excited again, I'll endeavor to give you a very brief outline of what I view the message of Mormonism. To simplify itWe were all created as part of large family before we came to this earth in mortality. Our literal Heavenly Father wants us to become like him, and in order to do that we needed to know the difference from good and evil, as he does. To do that, Adam and Eve transgressed in the Garden of Eden, which brought about death. To overcome death (both physical and spiritual), God sent his Son to sacrifice his life in our behalf. By virtue of his grace, it is now possible for us to return to heaven, and become one with our Heavenly Father and Jesus. It would be impossible for me to respond to all the accusations against LDS theology that have been posted on TT. Even when I do rebut the incorrect and sometimes ridiculous (viz, the God had sex with Mary denial I repeatedly gave) comments, some do not accept my explanations. Excepting for the accusations by some well known anti-Mormon TTers, I've tried to answer as many of the questions from other TTers as I can. I've certainly overlooked a few, and had not enough time for many though, and there are some I will not answer due to their nature (viz, temple ordinances). Andsome I have considered to be rhetorical, and hence did not feel compelled to respond. Soif there is any question you or any other TTer, excepting those who want to denigrate my beliefs, wish to askjust do it. If I don't respond within a reasonable time, and you really want to know the answermention it again.Lance Muir wrote: One cannot but grow weary of the pedantic, repetetive anti-Mormon diatribes put forward by CPL and others. Would you consider outlining for me alone (all of the others can hit delete or, close their eyes so as not to be contaminated) the Mormon 'gospel'. In so doing kindly answer the charges one hears again and again and again...ad nauseum. Since I know what they (the charges) are then, so do you. Let's set the record straight at least for the present. Y'all have had plenty of time to have grasped the distinctions 'tween the Mormon 'gospel' and the traditional Christian 'gospel'. Do it guys! (and gals if there are any of you lurking out there)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
[TruthTalk] Mormon culture is very appealing and sufficient reason to..
remain LDS regardless of how they view the doctrinal implications.' (quote from Dave Hansen) I wholeheartedly concur. I also see the application to social networks of various kinds, religious and political, throughout the globe. I listened to a Mennonite, being interviewed yesterday making essentially the same point.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Bill:This is not only significant exegetically but, theologically. As the two ought always being inextricably linked, you've chosen an excellent example to demonstrate your point. thanks, Lance - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 20, 2005 18:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: John why don't you just show us some of the mistakes in the KJ? Is this a serious request, in thatyou want to have aninformative discussion? If so,do you mind if I reply? Bill cd: By all means feel free to do so at your leisure: :-) Hi Dean, Since the theme has been that of perfection, I thought I would keep it going with a look at Hebrews 10.14. The KJV says, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they? Well, not if one's concern is with holding true to the "pure" word of God as set forth in the"Received Text." In the Greek this participle is a present tense in the passive voice. If one were desiring to reflect that voice in his translation and thereby hold true to the grammar and intent of the "majority text," this participle would best be translated as "those who are being sanctified," thereby reflecting asanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete. Hence according to this, Christ has perfected forever (a completed action), not those who are presently sanctified (also a completed action), butthose who are in the process of being sanctified: a fairly significant difference, it seems to me. Bill - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/19/2005 1:00:32 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: John why don't you just show us some of the mistakes in the KJ? Is this a serious request, in thatyou want to have aninformative discussion? If so,do you mind if I reply? Bill cd: By all means feel free to do so at your leisure: :-)
RE: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin
Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. (Ex 7:13) iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen And finallyI suspect what I am now going to say is not going to be well received by some TTers, but my testimony has actually been strengthened by what some TTers post..and for that, I am very thankful.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 6:21:00 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: John why don't you just show us some of the mistakes in the KJ? Is this a serious request, in thatyou want to have aninformative discussion? If so,do you mind if I reply? Bill cd: By all means feel free to do so at your leisure: :-) Hi Dean, Since the theme has been that of perfection, I thought I would keep it going with a look at Hebrews 10.14. The KJV says, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they? Well, not if one's concern is with holding true to the "pure" word of God as set forth in the"Received Text." In the Greek this participle is a present tense in the passive voice. If one were desiring to reflect that voice in his translation and thereby hold true to the grammar and intent of the "majority text," this participle would best be translated as "those who are being sanctified," thereby reflecting asanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete. Hence according to this, Christ has perfected forever (a completed action), not those who are presently sanctified (also a completed action), butthose who are in the process of being sanctified: a fairly significant difference, it seems to me. Bill cd: I find it interesting that you would ask a Wesleyan to debate Entire Sanctification even onward to Christian Perfection. We believe that as one is sanctification upon receiving the Lord there is yet a final Sanctification to be obtained-not upon death but prior to death-and just as a young believer experienced Salvation with it's first love one will know when they are entirely sanctified. When that happens it is almost impossible for that person to fall away-almost. Here is Paul message to a Church in Thessalonians: 'The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may the whole of you, the spirit,the soul.and the body be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.' Paul is speaking of something yet to happen which agrees with your above statement-and shows the beauty of the KJV. Has God promised to save us from sin while in the Body-Yes he has.But our part is to seek holiness and as God doesn't give promises that cannot be obtained for mockery sake-this is wit hin out grasp-as we have overcome the wicked one (1 John2:13).If you would like to discuss this in more detail-please feel free to do so brother:-) Also feel free to discuss other passages in the KJV as this is a big topic.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 10:02:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! bro, there's nothin'for a polite but perceptive protestant tosay but get your right wing jackboot offa the holy spirit's index finger--i think it's attached to the hand of god cd: Interpetion-I am waiting for the Holy Spirit to give me the answers-leave me alone. O.K. Gary. On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:09:28 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..gary is still thinking about the first question.
RE: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 10:14:31 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! Dean, if anyone knows whether or not you are moodyits your wife. iz cd: Youwomen sure stick together-and you are right sis:-) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean MooreSent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:22 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 5:08:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! Will you be sobering up any time soon, or is this the new Dean-O? JD cd: I am not drunk just rested up asI took this weekend off- I do very physical work and have been splitting firewood on weekends for over the last 2 months for this year and next year-this tend to take the mood of game playing away.Of course my wife thinks I'm moody but I disagree sometimes- depending on when she asks. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:57:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 4:45:15 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! Perhaps these arenotG's answers at all !!Could it be that the answers seem mutally exclusive of the other? JD cd: Thanks Jd-good catch-from now on you get to be TT's hall monitor-Gary are you cheating on this exam-by copying Judy's answers??? -Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:44:38 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! cd: Man? Where is 1-3 Gary or are you still thinking?Take you time-anytime before the end of the Tribulation will be fine. As I am using this for comparisons please answer on the same page-I bet you teachers in school hated you guts-Do any drive by your house real slow? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 1:01:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! ? || 4. Can one reject God and salvation ? No. 5. Can a person "fall" from the Grace of God (lose salvation in the traditional Christian view)? Yes.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
DAVEH: Just me Dean, or do you understand that you will be judged as well? cd: Yes and that is why I try to live by the words of the Bible-do you? O-You don't believe the words of Christ-He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. Well we will see whom the liar is on that Day -you or Christ. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing??? Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. J As far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively. When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 1:03:07 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons Remember Dave "The prophet is always right"?DAVEH: Are you asking a Mormon what he believes, or telling him what he believes? cd: Am I wrong?Dean Moore wrote: cd: Lance maybe you should know that the current prophet ( Gordon B.Hinckley) is loved more than Smith and His words arereceived as Gospel. He can actually change the Mormon religious structure. Remember Dave "The prophet is always right"? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
[TruthTalk] Re:THERE IS A HELL (quote from cd)
To 'cd' but more particularly to Bill Taylor and John Smithson. Colossians 1:16-20 (with particular focus on verse 20); Ephesians 1:9, 10 (with particular focus on verse 10)l - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: Just me Dean, or do you understand that you will be judged as well? cd: Yes and that is why I try to live by the words of the Bible-do you? O-You don't believe the words of Christ-He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. Well we will see whom the liar is on that Day -you or Christ. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor-TTers?
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 9:59:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor-TTers? I am a creature of a day. I am a spirit come from God, and returning to God. I want to know one thing: the way to heaven. God himself has condescended to teach me the way. He has written it down in a book. Oh, give me that book! At any price give me the book of God. Let me be a man of one book. John Wesley cd: And which book did he retain as a man of one Book-The KJV-which he used to Evangelize whole continents. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor-TTers?
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 10:04:31 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor-TTers? On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 18:59:30 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am a creature of a day. I am a spirit come from God, and returning to God. I want to know one thing: the way to heaven. God himself has condescended to teach me the way. He has written it down in a book. Oh, give me that book! At any price give me the book of God. Let me be a man of [the KJV?]. John Wesley cd: Yes.
[TruthTalk] 'The other versions are not complete and have actually
removed some of the word of Christ.' (quote from 'cd') Would you be so kind as to expand, explain and demonstrate what you've just said herein? Further, 'I agree with your position that the KJV is the BEST TRANSLATION..' (quote from Christine) Would you be so kind as to expand, explain and demonstrate what you've just said herein?
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
To 'cd':You employed the plural 'Rabbi(s)' As to the 'tape recorder you didn't have' fine. How 'bout your memory? The location(s), Rabbi(s) names, the words spoken as best you can recall them. I'd settle for this. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
[TruthTalk] Islam is based on Law
Hey Christine. Good to hear from you! You certainly are on the right track here. I took a course on Islam taught by someone who lived in the Middle East. As you are finding out, it is primarily based on works and not faith. Islamic law has been seen as the blueprint to guiding Muslims' correct action, that is, what to do in their public and private lives in order to realize God's will. Sufism try to experience a more direct and personal sense of God. Sensing God and knowing Him are two completely different things. Pete From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Moore Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:27 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get bent out of shape over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters. This Islam stuff is something else. Blessings! Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing??? Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. J As far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively. When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
[TruthTalk] Re:CD says 'their' Rabbi(s) instruct 'them' NOT TO READ ISAIAH
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To 'cd':You employed the plural 'Rabbi(s)' As to the 'tape recorder you didn't have' fine. How 'bout your memory? The location(s), Rabbi(s) names, the words spoken as best you can recall them. I'd settle for this. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
Maybe you could share what you see as wrong with the content of what he said. This is a Prime example , therefore there must be all kinds of errors and problems in his speech. Just what specifically are yours and other LDS complaints?A list would be helpful.I think the list is this. We just do not like anyone to say anything against our religion.Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: Thank you for sharing that, Kevin. After watching Dean preach, I do not understand why he claims not to protest Mormonism. Seems to me that is exactly what he was doing. Do you disagree? BTW.I rather like the tag line, as it speaks volumes: Real Christians behave like Christians.Kevin Deegan wrote: Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that might qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, please let me dissuade you from the false assumption that being called anti-mormon by mormons bothers anyone any more than being called a homophobe by sodomites. It only makes the name-caller feel better, but falls on the ground beyond that. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!DAVEH: I can only view you from my perspective, Dean. And my perspective is that I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's True Church. Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that mig ht qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean Moore wrote: Dean Moore wrote: cd: Dave satisfy my curiosity. As I answered your questions here DAVEH: Yes, and I thank you for that, Dean. Because of that I'll be happy to reciprocate, even though you are an anti-Mormon. cd: I would be helpful if you viewed me as anti-sin, pro-God, anti-antiChrist:-) As I am not focused on just the Mormon cult but all cults and false teachings-this you will learn if you pay attention. Labels only lead to misunderstanding of others and confuses their beliefs.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
I think all the conversions were young people, say 19 to 30 years old.Do you think once a mormon always a mormon?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean Moore wrote: I have preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ at many gatherings including the Mormon Temple. ,Catholic Churches, Mormon wards, To which Mormon Wards have you preached at and why? Was there a particular reason (or event) that prompted you to do so? cd: Yes those in SLC kept the Mormons at the wards when they wittinessed Mormon converting to the gospel of Christ-to avoid us so we went to them-Just where the people gather.DAVEH: Really! I find that rather interesting, if not unbelievable. As the LDS being the true church you are wrong.DAVEH: I understand why you would feel that way. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.cd: It really doesn't matter whether you agree or not- judgement will still fall upon youDAVEH: Just me Dean, or do you understand that you will be judged as well? -God is not going away and the only place you are going is to God. It is not MY assessment-rather the promise of God as He gave to the Prophets of old and this one does not lie. That is where you make you greatest error.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
In the OT, LDS belief is that Jehovah=Jesus Elohim=The FatherThen what about the SHEMA which says Jehovah our Elohim is ONE Jehovah A Spirit Body? Did you just coin that word? Please define it and send the results to Miriam Webster http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/spirit%20bodyAnd just what does a Spirit Body consist of? Sounds like a square triangle to me. Since the definition of spirit has to do with IMMATERIAL or the state of being BODILESS, it is a oxymoron http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionaryva=spiritDo you have any examples of Spirit Bodies? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, why are you arguing with Christians who many many times have told you that we believe, from scripture, that God the Father is a Spirit?DAVEH: Because Kevin begged the an answer to his question... If he is a MAN what is that man made of?Gingerbread?.Then he quoted a passage to describe the Resurrected Christ Lu 24:9 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. ...and then implied that I did not understand the difference between blood and bone When he was resurrected He became Flesh BONE (W hat happened to the blood He is Not Spirit BUT He is also NOT Flesh Blood right now. He is Flesh Bone).I was merely trying to point out that nothing of what he posted contradicts LDS theology, and in fact supports it. What you and Kevin apparently fail to grasp is that the God of the OT was in most instances Jesus who was (until his birth) a spirit being. That would not preclude his Father of having a physical body of flesh and bone at the same time Jesus possessed only a spirit body! Do you disagree, Perry? Do you see where I am going with this? As I understand it, you believe that Jesus and his Father are two distinct personsis that correct? Then, cannot one of those entities (the Father) have a physical body of flesh and bone at the same time as the other (Jesus) has a spirit body, which is what I believe was the situation in the OT? Does that scenario contradict anything in either your beliefs or the doctrines of Protestantism as you understand them? To me, this is a very important question which I've not heard addressed on TT. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective, as well as that of other TTers.When you continue to ask us over and over and over why we don't think God the Father has flesh and bones, you are no longer trying to learn, and are flat out ignoring what you have been told over and over...at that point you are trying to convince us otherwise. The reason I ask those same questions over and over is because most who attempt to answer fail to understand my question. My above explanation is about as simply put as I can state it, so I hope it will finally sink in as to what I am asking.Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, why are you arguing with Christians who many many times have told you that we believe, from scripture, that God the Father is a Spirit? You keep trying to argue with Christians on that point, which you have asked and heard the answer over and over. If you really want to know what "protestants" believe, then accept that fact, and accept the scriptures that are repeatedly used to demonstrate that to you. remeber, we get are facts from the Bible, not extra-biblical heretical works. When you continue to ask us over and over and over why we don't think God the Father has flesh and bones, you are no longer trying to learn, and are flat out ignoring what you have been told over and over...at that point you are trying to convince us otherwise. That is called proselytizing, which you claim you are not here to do! Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:55:22 -0800 _*If he is a MAN what is that man made of?*_ DAVEH: Jesus in his current resurrected state is /flesh and bone/, as you correctly stated... _*Lu 24:9 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a *spirit* hath not* flesh and bones*, as ye see me have.*_ _*When he was resurrected He became Flesh BONE (What happened to the blood He is Not Spirit BUT He is also NOT Flesh Blood right now. He is Flesh Bone)*_ ...So why did you feel the need to suggest the *Father is NOT FLESH BLOOD*...it was not an issue. However, since Jesus has a physical body of /flesh and bone/, then it might give one reason to ponder whether or not his Father in heaven might also be likewise composed. Kevin Deegan wrote: _*If he is a MAN what is that man made of?*_ *Gingerbread?* */Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: *THEREFORE as you can see, the Father is NOT FLESH BLOOD* DAVEH: ??? Huh!?!?!?! Who said anything about the *Father *being *FLESH BLOOD*??? Why do you make this
RE: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin
Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservations. --Elton TruebloodShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. (Ex 7:13) izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen And finallyI suspect what I am now going to say is not going to be well received by some TTers, but my testimony has actually been strengthened by what some TTers post..and for that, I am very thankful. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Hi Dean, Since the theme has been that of perfection, I thought I would keep it going with a look at Hebrews 10.14. The KJV says, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they? Well, not if one's concern is with holding true to the "pure" word of God as set forth in the"Received Text." In the Greek this participle is a present tense in the passive voice. If one were desiring to reflect that voice in his translation and thereby hold true to the grammar and intent of the "majority text," this participle would best be translated as "those who are being sanctified," thereby reflecting asanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete. Hence according to this, Christ has perfected forever (a completed action), not those who are presently sanctified (also a completed action), butthose who are in the process of being sanctified: a fairly significant difference, it seems to me. Bill cd: I find it interesting that you would ask a Wesleyan to debate Entire Sanctification even onward to Christian Perfection. Just a minor point of departure, brtother, I didn't ask you to debate "Entire Sanctification"; you wanted to see some mistakes in the KJ, and I used this verse to "discuss" one with you. While I am intrigued by your position, Iam not inclined to debateit with you, as I have experienced the futility of that excercise with others :)I've enjoyed reading the rest of your post and invite you to elaborate if you wish. I will askquestions for clarification if any arise. Bill We believe that as one is sanctification upon receiving the Lord there is yet a final Sanctification to be obtained-not upon death but prior to death-and just as a young believer experienced Salvation with it's first love one will know when they are entirely sanctified.When that happens it is almost impossible for that person to fall away-almost. Here is Paul message to a Church in Thessalonians: 'The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may the whole of you, the spirit,the soul.and the body be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.' Paul is speaking of something yet to happen which agrees with your above statement-and shows the beauty of the KJV. Has God promised to save us from sin while in the Body-Yes he has.But our part is to seek holiness and as God doesn't give promises that cannot be obtained for mockery sake-this is wit hin out grasp-as we have overcome the wicked one (1 John2:13).If you would like to discuss this in more detail-please feel free to do so brother:-) Also feel free to discuss other passages in the KJV as this is a big topic. I will do that as time permits; but right now, it's back to prison :)
Re: [TruthTalk] Forgiveness
How do these words ( of Christ-- Matt 5-7 ) relate to any discussion of law and grace? " -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:30:40 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Forgiveness I ascribed no "motives" whatsoever to you. What motives do you think I commented on? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 2:22 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Forgiveness Is there some reason why you find it necessary to comment on my motives as opposed to actuallyanswering the question that I so plainly asked, to wit: How do these words ( of Christ ) relate to any discussion of law and grace? "? The sermon is full of "rules" that none ofusobey." So just answer my question. My motives are of no concern to you and are , truly, fully unknown to you. How do these words ( of Christ ) relate to any discussion of law and grace? " JD -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:10:25 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Forgiveness It was mine, as JD wrote: "we have Christ presenting a prayer that is nowhere repeated in scripture;.we have a "correction " of the Mosaic law on divorce; we have new definition on hate and murder; we have His amendment on "an eye for eye" a part of the Mosaic law;How do these words ( of Christ ) relate to any discussion of law and g race? " They do not seem incongruent to me, but seem to be so to JD. What say ye, JD? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TaylorSent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:26 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Forgiveness Verifying my statement that the Sermon on the Mount is NOT out ofalignment with the rest of scripture as JD claims. iz It was not my impression that John thought this. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice.. cd To demand that others accept what you have to say simply based upon the fact that you made the claim is not reasonable. There are many things taught on TT that are not a part of the teaching of the larger church. Perhaps those who spoke against reading Isaiah were not presenting a teaching of the Mormon church -- just a couple of lame ducks doing their thing. Or, maybe they were concerned for their version of the truth and only wanted to postpone this reading? Lots of possibilities. If their advice is the teaching of the Mormon Church, then Lance's request for more info is a righteous one. You continually speak of the NASV as a book that removes the words of Christ -- something that is untrue. Is my only choice to call you a liar because I do not agree with you? I think not. I will assume that you cannot present the info Lance requested. Jd -Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:39:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons
Am I wrong? DAVEH: Yes. Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Are you asking a Mormon what he believes, or telling him what he believes? Remember Dave "The prophet is always right"? cd: Am I wrong? Dean Moore wrote: cd: Lance maybe you should know that the current prophet ( Gordon B.Hinckley) is loved more than Smith and His words arereceived as Gospel. He can actually change the Mormon religious structure. Remember Dave "The prophet is always right"? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:THERE IS A HELL (quote from cd)
Since becoming a member of TT,I have come to appreciate the importance of the truth of these two scriptures.For me, to teach the gospel of Christ without including the thinking that is presented in these passages is to completely miss the point of the Incarnate Son of God and His death-ascension-indwelling. thanks for the reminder. I will take some time, this day, to reconsider these two passages. Perhaps God has something to show me . Jd-Original Message-From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:29:40 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:THERE IS A HELL (quote from cd) To 'cd' but more particularly to Bill Taylor and John Smithson. Colossians 1:16-20 (with particular focus on verse 20); Ephesians 1:9, 10 (with particular focus on verse 10)l - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:16 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: Just me Dean, or do you understand that you will be judged as well? cd: Yes and that is why I try to live by the words of the Bible-do you? O-You don't believe the words of Christ-He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. Well we will see whom the liar is on that Day -you or Christ. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah. DAVEH: Do you really not think they read Isaiah? As I see it, they read the Bible and understood that it said Jesus would come as a lion. When he came as a lamb, they did not recognize him. Their understanding of Scripture was totally out of whack compared to reality. To me it is very analogous to what I see in the Christian world. Dean Moore wrote: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. DAVEH: Hmmmare we back to that, Dean? When did I ever say there was not a hell? If you cannot produce a specific quote where I said such, then I respectfully ask you to withdraw this false charge. Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Just me Dean, or do you understand that you will be judged as well? cd: Yes and that is why I try to live by the words of the Bible-do you? O-You don't believe the words of Christ-He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. Well we will see whom the liar is on that Day -you or Christ. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin
DAVEH: But I am listening, Izzy. That's what is strengthening my faith. Thank you for your contribution! ShieldsFamily wrote: Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. (Ex 7:13) iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen And finallyI suspect what I am now going to say is not going to be well received by some TTers, but my testimony has actually been strengthened by what some TTers post..and for that, I am very thankful. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:DAVE HANSEN
DAVEH: Correct. Lance Muir wrote: So then Dave, even if one were to substantiate charges of malfeasance against Joseph Smith, the BoM would not, by extension, be subject to question From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 20, 2005 17:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons DAVEH: Please repost it. I vaguely remember it, and also vaguely remember responding to part of it, but assumed that the comment IFF Joseph Smith goes then, you all go was mostly rhetorical. LDS folks usually consider the BoM to be the keystone of our religion, as per JS's suggestion. From our perspective, any man can fall. But the BoM is a step up the ladder (so to speak) from JS. Lance Muir wrote: Yes. I did a second post concerning a 'house of cards' framework vis a vis groups which stand or fall based upon the legitimacy of a central figure or figures. I referenced 'solipsism' (a philosophy). Example: IFF Joseph Smith goes then, you all go. It was longer than this but, along this line. - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 20, 2005 12:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons Now, as to 'Dear Mormons, part deux'? DAVEH: ??? Help me out Lance.to what are you referring? Did I overlook something? Lance Muir wrote: Thanks. This is helpful. Now, as to 'Dear Mormons, part deux'? L - Original Message - From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 19, 2005 22:07 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons DAVEH: I found it on my second computer, Lance! At the risk of getting Perry excited again, I'll endeavor to give you a very brief outline of what I view the message of Mormonism. To simplify itWe were all created as part of large family before we came to this earth in mortality. Our literal Heavenly Father wants us to become like him, and in order to do that we needed to know the difference from good and evil, as he does. To do that, Adam and Eve transgressed in the Garden of Eden, which brought about death. To overcome death (both physical and spiritual), God sent his Son to sacrifice his life in our behalf. By virtue of his grace, it is now possible for us to return to heaven, and become one with our Heavenly Father and Jesus. It would be impossible for me to respond to all the accusations against LDS theology that have been posted on TT. Even when I do rebut the incorrect and sometimes ridiculous (viz, the God had sex with Mary denial I repeatedly gave) comments, some do not accept my explanations. Excepting for the accusations by some well known anti-Mormon TTers, I've tried to answer as many of the questions from other TTers as I can. I've certainly overlooked a few, and had not enough time for many though, and there are some I will not answer due to their nature (viz, temple ordinances). Andsome I have considered to be rhetorical, and hence did not feel compelled to respond. Soif there is any question you or any other TTer, excepting those who want to denigrate my beliefs, wish to askjust do it. If I don't respond within a reasonable time, and you really want to know the answermention it again. Lance Muir wrote: One cannot but grow weary of the pedantic, repetetive anti-Mormon diatribes put forward by CPL and others. Would you consider outlining for me alone (all of the others can hit delete or, close their eyes so as not to be contaminated) the Mormon 'gospel'. In so doing kindly answer the charges one hears again and again and again...ad nauseum. Since I know what they (the charges) are then, so do you. Let's set the record straight at least for the present. Y'all have had plenty of time to have grasped the distinctions 'tween the Mormon 'gospel' and the traditional Christian 'gospel'.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since the theme has been that of perfection, I thought I would keep it going with a look at Hebrews 10.14. The KJV says, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they? Well, not if one's concern is with holding true to the "pure" word of God as set forth in the"Received Text." In the Greek this participle is a present tense in the passive voice. If one were desiring to reflect that voice in his translation and thereby hold true to the grammar and intent of the "majority text," this participle would best be translated as "those who are being sanctified," thereby reflecting asanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete. Hence according to this, Christ has perfected forever (a completed action), not those who are presently sanctified (also a completed action), butthose who are in the process of being sanctified: a fairly significant difference, it seems to me. Bill So this is an example of how the KJV is in error Bill? IMO the error is with your understanding rather than with the text of theKJV translation. You have read something into the text that is not there and have madea straw man to knock down. The word sanctification does not necessarily mean an action being performed; the same word is used in 1 Cor 7:14 for an unbelieving wife who is sanctified (set apart, consecrated) by the faith of her husband. In this sense "sanctified" means something entirely different from what you describe. SoIOW "By one offering Jesus has perfected for ever them that are set apart, consecrated (or sanctified)." judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Frank Ates
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:14:48 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the differences between the two covenants referenced in Jere 31:31-34 is this leadership of the spirit. We, here on TT, are not the typical picture of the church. Most (except for two that I can think of ) are well studied and prepared to defend their point of view while probably 90% of the church is not so equipped. The reason we need teachers, preachers, and evangelist is because few "study to show " themselves approved (is that what it really says ??). I have known literally hundreds of Christians, over the years, who thoroughly understand what God is all about but are not students of the biblical message.There is all this argument over the "law"n bsp; much talk about not much. JD what is this n bsp? Is it your own personal shorthand because it is meaningless to me. If I were you I would be repenting between the doorpost and altar for the hundreds of "Christians" you refer to above because they do not know what God is all about and are in danger of perishing for lack of knowledge. New Testament scriptures (which is different form "new testament") do not have a legal ring to them as does parts of Exodus and Leviticus. There is just nothing in NT scripture of equal style -- because the law has come to an end for those who are led by the Spirit. God's moral law has done nothing of the sort. It still stands in judgment of those who transgress it.. and the Words Jesus spoke were entirely in harmony with it. Heaven and earth will pass away before one jot or tittle will be changed. Anyone who makes a statement like the above just does not know God. We need the biblical message -- but we can certainly be as "spiritual" as anyone without the Book. Oh really? In whose opinion? God says through the prophet Isaiah "If they speak not according to THIS Word there is no light in them" Isaiah 8:20 So if the light within you be darkness, how great is that darkness? Matthew 6:23. Following other men's opinions can be deadly. In fact, there hasbeen many hundreds ifnot millions of Christian who have been denied access to the Message, over the centuries. Thank God that He has given us His Abiding Word -- as well as the biblical message. Jd Oh so now we have a choice, there are two kinds of Word rather than just one? Where did that come from? We don't have to concern ourselves with what is past. Noone in our generation has been denied access to the Message, the Biblical message that is or the Scriptures as Jesus called them so by what authority do you make the claim above? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
I'm in the house to get some coffee and off to the shop -- but, who is Dean in the video? The guy with the hat, who looks like hehas a wad of chew? Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Apparently most believing perichoresis types also chew !! But is that Dean? JD Bye for now. -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:58:11 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: Thank you for sharing that, Kevin. After watching Dean preach, I do not understand why he claims not to protest Mormonism. Seems to me that is exactly what he was doing. Do you disagree? BTW.I rather like the tag line, as it speaks volumes: Real Christians behave like Christians.Kevin Deegan wrote: Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that might qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean. Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, please let me dissuade you from the false assumption that being called "anti-mormon" by mormons bothers anyone any more than being called a "homophobe" by sodomites. It only makes the name-caller feel better, but falls on the ground beyond that. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: I can only view you from my perspective, Dean. And my perspective is that I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's True Church. Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that mig ht qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean Moore wrote: Dean Moore wrote: cd: Dave satisfy my curiosity. As I answered your questions here DAVEH: Yes, and I thank you for that, Dean. Because of that I'll be happy to reciprocate, even though you are an anti-Mormon. cd: I would be helpful if you viewed me as anti-sin, pro-God, anti-antiChrist:-) As I am not focused on just the Mormon cult but all cults and false teachings-this you will learn if you pay attention. Labels only lead to misunderstanding of others and confuses their beliefs.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians
This is interesting ... The anti-Christian site is obeying the will of their father with a false scenario. Why are the girls in black out there singing? They certainly don't look rehearsed or even focused and in the past I have been told that their sole purpose was to drown out the street preachers. The choice Dean presents here is exactly right. Truth vs error, light vs darkness, and life as opposed to death. All of us must choose this day we we will serve Kevin Deegan wrote: Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Islam is based on Law
Hey Pete, Do the ones teaching these courses consider the fact that Islam is based on a false revelation given to Mohammad in a desert cave by an "angel of light" which is similar to the way Joseph Smith received his revelation prior to translating and penning the Book of Mormon. Neither know anything about God or His will, they are walking in deception after havingbeen deceived. On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:59:45 -0600 "Peter Krostag" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Christine. Good to hear from you! You certainly are on the right track here. I took a course on Islam taught by someone who lived in the Middle East. As you are finding out, it is primarily based on works and not faith. Islamic law has been seen as the blueprint to guiding Muslims' correct action, that is, what to do in their public and private lives in order to realize God's will. Sufism try to experience a more direct and personal sense of God. Sensing God and knowing Him are two completely different things. Pete judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing???Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. JAs far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively.When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Islam is based on Law
Actually Judy, I find it fascinating to see the commonalities Islam shares with Mormonism. Both say the same thing about authority: it went well for a little while, but then they dropped the ball. They are both consumed with good works. And you brought up another: the likeness of the "revelations." I guess man-made religions will always resemble one another.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Pete, Do the ones teaching these courses consider the fact that Islam is based on a false revelation given to Mohammad in a desert cave by an "angel of light" which is similar to the way Joseph Smith received his revelation prior to translating and penning the Book of Mormon. Neither know anything about God or His will, they are walking in deception after havingbeen deceived. On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:59:45 -0600 "Peter Krostag" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Christine.Good to hear from you! You certainly are on the right track here. I took a course on Islam taught by someone who lived in the Middle East. As you are finding out, it is primarily based on works and not faith. Islamic law has been seen as the blueprint to guiding Muslims' correct action, that is, what to do in their public and private lives in order to realize God's will. Sufism try to experience a more direct and personal sense of God. Sensing God and knowing Him are two completely different things.Pete judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians
Amen, Dean! I thought you spoke very well on the subject. And what is un-Christian about preaching Christ?? JD or Lance? Did you find find his preaching offensive? Am I just desensitized to preachers? :-)Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is interesting ... The anti-Christian site is obeying the will of their father with a false scenario. Why are the girls in black out there singing? They certainly don't look rehearsed or even focused and in the past I have been told that their sole purpose was to drown out the street preachers. The choice Dean presents here is exactly right. Truth vs error, light vs darkness, and life as opposed to death. All of us must choose this day we we will serve Kevin Deegan wrote: Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
RE: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
Ive also been told by a Jew that the messianic chapters in Isaiah are not included in the Torah readings. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Moore Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:40 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this Jesus must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also. Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this Jesus must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books) -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
JD, what do Rabbis have to do with the mormon guys iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice.. cd To demand that others accept what you have to say simply based upon the fact that you made the claim is not reasonable. There are many things taught on TT that are not a part of the teaching of the larger church. Perhaps those who spoke against reading Isaiah were not presenting a teaching of the Mormon church -- just a couple of lame ducks doing their thing. Or, maybe they were concerned for their version of the truth and only wanted to postpone this reading? Lots of possibilities. If their advice is the teaching of the Mormon Church, then Lance's request for more info is a righteous one. You continually speak of the NASV as a book that removes the words of Christ -- something that is untrue. Is my only choice to call you a liar because I do not agree with you? I think not. I will assume that you cannot present the info Lance requested. Jd -Original Message- From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:39:40 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this Jesus must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also. Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this Jesus must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books) -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin
If you were listening to the Holy Spirit you would not persist in your cult religion. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:58 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin DAVEH: But I am listening, Izzy. That's what is strengthening my faith. Thank you for your contribution! ShieldsFamily wrote: Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said. (Ex 7:13) iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen And finallyI suspect what I am now going to say is not going to be well received by some TTers, but my testimony has actually been strengthened by what some TTers post..and for that, I am very thankful. -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
Thanks for sharing your observation Christine, that encourages me because so many Churches use the NIV today. I'm with you in thinking it a horrible translation while ATST I believe God is faithful and able to use any of them for a season. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:24:23 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing??? Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. J As far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively. When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
RE: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
Kevin, are you the guy doing the preaching, or the guy in the polkadot baseball cap, or the guy with no hat on? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:06 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! I'm in the house to get some coffee and off to the shop -- but, who is Dean in the video? The guy with the hat, who looks like hehas a wad of chew? Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Apparently most believing perichoresis types also chew !! But is that Dean? JD Bye for now. -Original Message- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:58:11 -0800 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: Thank you for sharing that, Kevin. After watching Dean preach, I do not understand why he claims not to protest Mormonism. Seems to me that is exactly what he was doing. Do you disagree? BTW.I rather like the tag line, as it speaks volumes: Real Christians behave like Christians. Kevin Deegan wrote: Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that might qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean. Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference, (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, please let me dissuade you from the false assumption that being called anti-mormon by mormons bothers anyone any more than being called a homophobe by sodomites. It only makes the name-caller feel better, but falls on the ground beyond that. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:26 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: I can only view you from my perspective, Dean. And my perspective is that I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's True Church. Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that mig ht qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean. Dean Moore wrote: Dean Moore wrote: cd: Dave satisfy my curiosity. As I answered your questions here DAVEH: Yes, and I thank you for that, Dean. Because of that I'll be happy to reciprocate, even though you are an anti-Mormon. cd: I would be helpful if you viewed me as anti-sin, pro-God, anti-antiChrist:-) As I am not focused on just the Mormon cult but all cults and false teachings-this you will learn if you pay attention. Labels only lead to misunderstanding of others and confuses their beliefs. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one is going to answer the questions I asked of deegan is evidence to me of the weakness of your argument. Dean , you use the KJ translation to defeat the NASV while completely missing the point of the various translations and assuming the very thing that is in question - the supremacy of the KJ bible. Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:57:03 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 7:21:16 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:56:04 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: I don't believe we have to go to that extreme:-) As we do not hold to the versions that do this-also there is a difference between the degree of altercations in the NASV and the Book of Mormon-huge difference. One left off words or made mistakes while the other was turned into a complete new religion by Smith. I hear what you are saying Dean - ATST it is hypocritical to castigate them while doing the same thing ourselves in the name of scholarship. I read somewhere that one of the NASB translators had a change of heart and repented for the part he played in that translation. The NIV which is used in most churches today is one of the worst offenders. Cutting the second part ofRomans 8:1 out is a real travesty that leads ppl to believe that all they must do to be free from condemnation is to say their prayer. Never mind walking after the Spirit and not fulfilling the lust of the flesh, it's OK toremain ignorant about that. No wonder the professing church is so sick... cd: Thank you for that info on Romans 8:1 It was as you stated in the Greek and the Hebrew. KJ right again. Glad to hear that Guy repented sis :-) From: Judy Taylor Dean writes: The problem I have with the NASV is it took the words of Jesus awayDAVEH: I wonder if the TTers who have criticized me (LDS theology) for adding/subtracting from the Word are as critical when they view the NASV or other translations that s eemingly change what is conveyed i n Bible. Againjust pondering this out loud.no need to respond, Dean. cd : Good point Dave-and I think it deserves an answer. Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the
[TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
Title: Evaluating the New International Version Evaluating the New International Version Before we look at any of the "modern" Bible translations, it is important to understand some important concepts principles of linguistics and translation. Important Concepts in Bible Translation Before we begin looking at various Bible translations, there are some important concepts and principles that we need to consider and understand. Limits of Language – When we talk about translation, we must first realize that any translation from one language to another has limits. All languages are not arranged in the same way. In fact, most languages are arranged differently. Grammar: Each language has its own grammatical rules. We cannot try to apply the grammar rules of one language to another directly. In the work of translating, the grammatical rules of each language must be respected. Semantic Range: The meaning of words in one language may not have the same range of meaning in another language (eg. - eros, agape, philos = English "love") Syntax: Syntax refers to the structure of phrases. Each language has a different way of putting sentences together. Some have verbs first and nouns second. Some have the adjective before a noun while others place the adjectives after the noun. Literal (verbal consistency) – Some translations choose to translate the words of the original language directly. The responsibility is therefore on the reader to check out the meaning of the original word themselves. Whether it is a form of measurement or an archaic word, those who prefer to translate literally or word-for-word keep the exact word of the text. Idiomatic – An idiomatic translation attempts to make the meaning of the passage clear, not just give a word-perfect translation. The idea here is that rather than make you find out what how big a "cubit" is, the translators give a modern measurement such as "feet" so that the reader understands the meaning. The translators do the background research into the ancient forms of measurement and provide a conversion rate that is mathematically equivalent. This can not only take place in relation to measurements and the like, but also can apply to concepts. An idiomatic translation uses a dynamic (or idiomatic) equivalent. Note: We never want to sacrifice historical accuracy (fidelity) for idiomatic _expression_. For example, just because everyone might not have an understanding of where Ephesus is located on a map, doesn’t mean we change this word to an equivalent like "Edmonton." Dynamic equivalents are only useful when they do not change the accuracy of the passage. Our translations must not add or delete anything from the original meaning just for the sake of idioms. Your choice of literal vs. idiomatic is truly up to you in choosing a translation. Neither method is right or wrong. It really is a matter of preference. Some of you will prefer to do the research yourselves and keep the literal translation. Others of you may figure that your time can be better spent studying the text rather than researching the dynamic equivalent. There are various reasons one may choose an idiomatic or literal translation. Here are some: 1. Easy reading – there are some place where a literal translation is quite easy to read and other places where a literal reading is almost non-sense because we do not understand the meaning of the words (the words haven’t been used for 400 years). Example: Matthew 3:15"Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." OR"We do well to conform in this way with all that God requires." 2. Easy understanding – the main reason that a dynamic equivalent would be used is to make the meaning more clear. Again, rather than the reader having to try to interpret the image, the translators have converted the word to a modern equivalent that the reader can understand. Example: 1 Chronicles 26:18"...and for the parbar on the west there were four at the road and two at the parbar.""As for the court to the west, there were four [guards] at the road and two at the court itself." 3. Evangelistic – Most of our Bibles have "theological" terminology in them. Of course, that’s no surprise. The Bible is a book about theology. However, for the non-Christian, terms like "justification" may not mean a whole lot until they have had time to be taught the doctrines of the faith. Some translations are written specifically so that unchurched people can read and understand them, and so they use more idiomatic language rather than literal. Example: Matthew 3:8"Bear fruit that befits repentance.""Do the things that will show that you have turned from your sins." 4. Bible Study – in contrast to the evangelistic purposes, other translations are designed more literally so that they can be used for serious Bible study. They intentionally stick more literally to the text in the original form so that the student of Scripture can study the Bible
[TruthTalk] Emailing: KJV.htm
Title: Evaluating the King James Version Revelation ScriptureEvaluating the King James Version Disadvantages The primary weakness of the King James Version is that it is based upon the Textus Receptus which was authored by Erasmus in March 1516. Erasmus used many Greek manuscripts in preparing the Textus Receptus, but none of them were earlier than the 12th century. The Textus Receptus, though not equivalent to the Byzantine text, is quite similar. The Textus Receptus did not have access to some of the more prominent early manuscripts we discussed last week: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Since these are both earlier manuscripts and from a broader geographical range, they most likely represent better textual evidence of the original. For modern readers, the KJV does not represent a very readable text. The Old English language is not readily understood by modern readers. If the meaning of a Bible translation is not able to be understood, it really is not particularly useful. Advantages The KJV of 1611 was written by some of the best scholars and linguists of the day. These men were also devout and pious Christians. They were broken up into six companies (groupings) totaling 47 men. As it was commissioned by King James, this version was very widely used by both the church, state, and people. As we discussed last time, one of the main reasons the KJV came about was so that the people wouldn’t be using one translation (The Geneva Bible) and the church another (The Bishop’s Bible). This was the culmination of almost 100 years of good serious Bible translation. Starting with Tyndale, Coverdale and others, the KJV was the culmination of continuing efforts to make the best English translation available and accessible to people. The KJV was a very good piece of English literature at the time, fitting in well with other stylistic and artistic pieces of literature in this period. While many of us may not find the KJV as useful today for our reading and studying of Scripture, we must recognize that it was the Bible translation for the past four hundred years. Like many of you, I memorized most of my early Scripture verses in the KJV and still remember them in that translation. I do not think it is the best version to use in today’s churches, but it is in now way morally deficient or heretical. Some "Weird and Wonderful" thoughts about the KJV: The KJV is inspired – Evangelical Christians believe in the inspiration of the original autographs of Scripture. The original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (which we do not have access to, but are very accurately reproduced through the science of textual criticism) are inspired, not any English translation, including the KJV. The KJV is the only theologically accurate version – This is simply not true. Most of the modern English versions have no theological inaccuracies. The theology of the KJV is certainly theologically strong, but so also is the theology of various other versions. A look at some of the supposedly "corrupted" passages (according to KJV advocates): [The first part identifies the explanation espoused by KJV advocates. The "Evaluation" is the instructor’s critique of this concern.] 1. The deity of Christ is watered down in Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30 in non-KJV versions. Instead of translating the text "God’s Son" (KJV), other version translate it "God’s servant." Evaluation: The common Greek word for "son" is uios. The common Greek word for servant is doulos. The word used in this text is paidos (paida). This is simply an issue of translation. In most cases in the New Testament, paidos is translated as "child" (often a male child = son). However, in most occasions when Jesus is referred to as "God’s son" the words uios theou (son of God) are together. Since this is not the case, this is likely why modern translations have not used the word "Son." Regardless of this dispute, the context is quite clear that Jesus is being referred to, whether or not we read "Son" or "servant." 2. The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch is eliminated in the non-KJV versions of Acts 8:37. Evaluation: As the footnotes in most modern translations indicates "the early manuscripts do not have verse 37 in them." This is indeed an accurate statement as Aleph, A, B, C, p45, p74 and others do not have the words: "Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The official answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Furthermore, even if the non-KJV translations do not include this phrase, is it not quite clear that the Ethiopian eunuch was indeed saved? If you read your Bible (in any
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:32:09 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one is going to answer the questions I asked of deegan is evidence to me of the weakness of your argument. Dean , you use the KJ translatio n to defeat the NASV while completely missing the point of the various translations and assuming the very thing that is in question - the supremacy of the KJ bible. Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:57:03 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 7:21:16 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:56:04 -0500 "Dean Moore" cd_moore@earthlink.net writes: cd: I don't believe we have to go to that extreme:-) As we do not hold to the versions that do this-also there is a difference between the degree of altercations in the NASV and the Book of Mormon-huge difference. One left off words or made mistakes while the other was turned into a complete new religion by Smith. I hear what you are saying Dean - ATST it is hypocritical to castigate them while doing the same thing ourselves in the name of scholarship. I read somewhere that one of the NASB translators had a change of heart and repented for the part he played in that translation. The NIV which is used in most churches today is one of the worst offenders. Cutting the second part ofRomans 8:1 out is a real travesty that leads ppl to believe that all they must do to be free from condemnation is to say their prayer. Never mind walking after the Spirit and not fulfilli ng the lust of the flesh, it's OK toremain ignorant about that. No wonder the professing church is so sick... cd: Thank you for that info
Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
Title: Evaluating the New International Version Thanks for the input, Lance. It is always good to hear some thoughtful discourse on the different translations. Am I correct in understanding that you object to my statement that the KJV is the "best" translation? Do you mind if I ask why? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Evaluating the New International VersionBefore we look at any of the "modern" Bible translations, it is important to understand some important concepts principles of linguistics and translation. Important Concepts in Bible Translation Before we begin looking at various Bible translations, there are some important concepts and principles that we need to consider and understand. Limits of Language When we talk about translation, we must first realize that any translation from one language to another has limits. All languages are not arranged in the same way. In fact, most languages are arranged differently. Grammar: Each language has its own grammatical rules. We cannot try to apply the grammar rules of one language to another directly. In the work of translating, the grammatical rules of each language must be respected. Semantic Range: The meaning of words in one language may not have the same range of meaning in another language (eg. - eros, agape, philos = English "love") Syntax: Syntax refers to the structure of phrases. Each language has a different way of putting sentences together. Some have verbs first and nouns second. Some have the adjective before a noun while others place the adjectives after the noun. Literal (verbal consistency) Some translations choose to translate the words of the original language directly. The responsibility is therefore on the reader to check out the meaning of the original word themselves. Whether it is a form of measurement or an archaic word, those who prefer to translate literally or word-for-word keep the exact word of the text. Idiomatic An idiomatic translation attempts to make the meaning of the passage clear, not just give a word-perfect translation. The idea here is that rather than make you find out what how big a "cubit" is, the translators give a modern measurement such as "feet" so that the reader understands the meaning. The translators do the background research into the ancient forms of measurement and provide a conversion rate that is mathematically equivalent. This can not only take place in relation to measurements and the like, but also can apply to concepts. An idiomatic translation uses a dynamic (or idiomatic) equivalent. Note: We never want to sacrifice historical accuracy (fidelity) for idiomatic _expression_. For example, just because everyone might not have an understanding of where Ephesus is located on a map, doesnt mean we change this word to an equivalent like "Edmonton." Dynamic equivalents are only useful when they do not change the accuracy of the passage. Our translations must not add or delete anything from the original meaning just for the sake of idioms. Your choice of literal vs. idiomatic is truly up to you in choosing a translation. Neither method is right or wrong. It really is a matter of preference. Some of you will prefer to do the research yourselves and keep the literal translation. Others of you may figure that your time can be better spent studying the text rather than researching the dynamic equivalent. There are various reasons one may choose an idiomatic or literal translation. Here are some: 1. Easy reading there are some place where a literal translation is quite easy to read and other places where a literal reading is almost non-sense because we do not understand the meaning of the words (the words havent been used for 400 years). Example: Matthew 3:15"Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." OR"We do well to conform in this way with all that God requires." 2. Easy understanding the main reason that a dynamic equivalent would be used is to make the meaning more clear. Again, rather than the reader having to try to interpret the image, the translators have converted the word to a modern equivalent that the reader can understand. Example: 1 Chronicles 26:18"...and for the parbar on the west there were four at the road and two at the parbar.""As for the court to the west, there were four [guards] at the road and two at the court itself." 3. Evangelistic Most of our Bibles have "theological" terminology in them. Of course, thats no surprise. The Bible is a book about theology. However, for the non-Christian, terms like "justification" may not mean a whole lot until they have had time to be taught the doctrines of the faith. Some translations are written specifically so that unchurched people can read and understand them, and so they use more idiomatic language rather than literal. Example: Matthew 3:8"Bear fruit that befits
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one is going to answer the questions I asked of deegan is evidence to me of the weakness of your argument. Dean , you use the KJ translatio n to defeat the NASV while completely missing the point of the various translations and assuming the very thing that is in question - the supremacy of the KJ bible. Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:57:03 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 7:21:16 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:56:04 -0500 "Dean Moore" cd_moore@earthlink.net writes: cd: I don't believe we have to go to that extreme:-) As we do not hold to the versions that do this-also there is a difference between the degree of altercations in the NASV and the Book of Mormon-huge difference. One left off words or made mistakes while the other was turned into a complete new religion by Smith.
Re: [TruthTalk] legthening the list Dave H. NA's
DH you never answered this. As this is the third request for Comment, I will have to append it to the NA (No anser list) from the RFC's (request for comments) And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.Why did He not say I will declare MY Name? Who is He speaking about?PS 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heavenWhy is this not the TRINITY? Is 48;16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In the OT, LDS belief is that Jehovah=Jesus Elohim=The FatherThen what about the SHEMA which says Jehovah our Elohim is ONE Jehovah A Spirit Body? Did you just coin that word? Please define it and send the results to Miriam Webster http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/spirit%20bodyAnd just what does a Spirit Body consist of? Sounds like a square triangle to me. Since the definition of spirit has to do with IMMATERIAL or the state of being BODILESS, it is a oxymoron http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionaryva=spiritDo you have any examples of Spirit Bodies? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, why are you arguing with Christians who many many times have told you that we believe, from scripture, that God the Father is a Spirit?DAVEH: Because Kevin begged the an answer to his question... If he is a MAN what is that man made of?Gingerbread?.Then he quoted a passage to describe the Resurrected Christ Lu 24:9 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. ...and then implied that I did not understand the difference between blood and bone When he was resurrected He became Flesh BONE (W hat happened to the blood He is Not Spirit BUT He is also NOT Flesh Blood right now. He is Flesh Bone).I was merely trying to point out that nothing of what he posted contradicts LDS theology, and in fact supports it. What you and Kevin apparently fail to grasp is that the God of the OT was in most instances Jesus who was (until his birth) a spirit being. That would not preclude his Father of having a physical body of flesh and bone at the same time Jesus possessed only a spirit body! Do you disagree, Perry? Do you see where I am going with this? As I understand it, you believe that Jesus and his Father are two distinct personsis that correct? Then, cannot one of those entities (the Father) have a physical body of flesh and bone at the same time as the other (Jesus) has a spirit body, which is what I believe was the situation in the OT? Does that scenario contradict anything in either your beliefs or the doctrines of Protestantism as you understand them? To me, this is a very important question which I've not heard addressed on TT. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective, as well as that of other TTers.When you continue to ask us over and over and over why we don't think God the Father has flesh and bones, you are no longer trying to learn, and are flat out ignoring what you have been told over and over...at that point you are trying to convince us otherwise. The reason I ask those same questions over and over is because most who attempt to answer fail to understand my question. My above explanation is about as simply put as I can state it, so I hope it will finally sink in as to what I am asking.Charles Perry Locke wrote: Dave, why are you arguing with Christians who many many times have told you that we believe, from scripture, that God the Father is a Spirit? You keep trying to argue with Christians on that point, which you have asked and heard the answer over and over. If you really want to know what "protestants" believe, then accept that fact, and accept the scriptures that are repeatedly used to demonstrate that to you. remeber, we get are facts from the Bible, not extra-biblical heretical works. When you continue to ask us over and over and over why we don't think God the Father has flesh and bones, you are no longer trying to learn, and are flat out ignoring what you have been told over and over...at that point you are trying to convince us otherwise. That is called proselytizing, which you claim you are not here to do! Perry From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:55:22 -0800 _*If he is a MAN what is that man made of?*_ DAVEH: Jesus in his current resurrected state is /flesh
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
Producing specific quotes proves nothing on TT. Not only did you NOT NOT say there is NOT a hell I bet you went to Slidell Baptist! No withdrawals of the charge and that is that. We will consider a break in the action and will resurrect them at some later date. At which you will have to refute them all over. Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. DAVEH: Hmmmare we back to that, Dean? When did I ever say there was not a hell? If you cannot produce a specific quote where I said such, then I respectfully ask you to withdraw this false charge.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Just me Dean, or do you understand that you will be judged as well?cd: Yes and that is why I try to live by the words of the Bible-do you? O-You don't believe the words of Christ-He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. Well we will see whom the liar is on that Day -you or Christ.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim period. He was neither a translator of the NASVas you claim below nor did he work on the project.But what was most interestingwas how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again).In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , walla, he even adm its that this is not true. Case closed Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one is going to answer the questions I asked of < SPAN class=correction id="">deegan is evidence to me of the weakness of your argument. Dean , you use the KJ translatio n to defeat the NASV while completely missing the point of the various translations and assuming the very thing that is in question - the supremacy of the KJ bible. Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:57:03 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers -
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
Another testimony: S. Franklin Logsdon (1907-1987) was a respected evangelical pastor and popular Bible conference speaker. He preached at Bible conferences (such as Moody Founder's Week) with well-known evangelists and pastors such as Billy Graham and Paul Smith of People's Church in Toronto. In the 1950s Logsdon was invited by his businessman friend Franklin Dewey Lockman to prepare a feasibility study which led to the production of the New American Standard Version (NASV). He also helped interview some of the men who served as translators for this version. He wrote the Foreword which appears in the NASV. As we see in the following testimony, in the later years of his life Logsdon publicly renounced his association with the modern versions and stood unhesitatingly for the King James Bible. [from: TESTIMONY OF A COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION By S. Frank Logsdon] ***Since this confession is not good for business is it any wonder his businessman friend's Corporation is in denial ? On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one is going to
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
NO JD - the issue is tied to your denial that Logsdon repented of anything at all. You called it a "SILLY RUMOR" (see below) This is what I addressed. The word translator is neither here nor there so far as I am concerned. This is Logsdon's own claim (not mine) so your argument is with him and if you want to believe a lie Oh well!! On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:00:01 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim period. He was neither a translator of the NASVas you claim below nor did he work on the project.But what was most interestingwas how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again).In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , walla, he even adm its that this is not true. Case closed Jd From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There
Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians
I am still wonder what is so objectionable about this preaching. This is theMOST OFFENDING example they could produce, after years of preaching outside the Temple square, this is it! Years of WHINING about OFFENSIVE SP's outside the Temple, this is it! Maybe I missed it, did you see it?One of the brothers has preached in front of the temple for over 10 years all of a sudden (The last ONE year) the LDS want to send a choir out to drown out the preaching and then they claim that the preaching is drowning them out. To create a problem then whine about it, O yeah, I forgot they are the persecuted church.On top of that they sing hymns about the CROSS There are no crosses in temple square. Why sing about the cross? They sing many about the RESTORATION "we thank thee O God for a PROPHET" every once in a while they sneak in one about JesusJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is interesting ... The anti-Christian site is obeying the will of their father with a false scenario. Why are the girls in black out there singing? They certainly don't look rehearsed or even focused and in the past I have been told that their sole purpose was to drown out the street preachers. The choice Dean presents here is exactly right. Truth vs error, light vs darkness, and life as opposed to death. All of us must choose this day we we will serve Kevin Deegan wrote: Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
If someone is STEALING away the words of Christ as you contend Dean, why get bent out of shape over that?Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing???Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. JAs far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively.When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
If He used a Jackass it may again be possible for Him to use the NIV.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for sharing your observation Christine, that encourages me because so many Churches use the NIV today. I'm with you in thinking it a horrible translation while ATST I believe God is faithful and able to use any of them for a season. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:24:23 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing???Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. JAs far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively.When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
RE: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
I am not in the LDS Hall of Inflamatory preaching I am a NICE SP Dean is NASTY as you can see in the video. He is doing something the LDS deam worthy of their distain. The guy in the hat is LDS trying to mock and disrupt the preacher. He is not as bad as some, who just mindlessly repeat over over the same MANTRA Something like "I like chicken""I saved on my car insurance" Or uninteligible noises and screems. They claim they are not paid for by the LDS church Yet many LDS actually believe we are paid to do what we do. They are taught that anyone that would tract or preach against the ONE TRUE CHURCH must be a PAID HIRELING of SATAN. Do you have stained glass in your church building? Did you know that means it is a house of SATAN?They dress up as Birds, cows, satan, crayola crayons, carry signs like "I'm with stupid" (probably took weeks to think that one up) I think they should change the name from General ConferencetoGeneral Circus!Some have gotten violent in the past and assaulted the little guys of course. ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Kevin, are you the guy doing the preaching, or the guy in the polkadot baseball cap, or the guy with no hat on? izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! I'm in the house to get some coffee and off to the shop -- but, who is Dean in the video? The guy with the hat, who looks like hehas a wad of chew? Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Apparently most believing perichoresis types also chew !! But is that Dean? JD Bye for now. -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:58:11 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!DAVEH: Thank you for sharing that, Kevin. After watching Dean preach, I do not understand why he claims not to protest Mormonism. Seems to me that is exactly what he was doing. Do you disagree? BTW.I rather like the tag line, as it speaks volumes: Real Christians behave like Christians.Kevin Deegan wrote: Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that might qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site.What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmvAllen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, please let me dissuade you from the false assumption that being called "anti-mormon" by mormons bothers anyone any more than being called a "homophobe" by sodomites. It only makes the name-caller feel better, but falls on the ground beyond that. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!DAVEH: I can only view you from my perspective, Dean. And my perspective is that I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's True Church. Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that mig ht qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean Moore wrote: Dean Moore wrote: cd: Dave satisfy my curiosity. As I answered your questions hereDAVEH: Yes, and I thank you for that, Dean. Because of that I'll be happy to reciprocate, even though you are an anti-Mormon.cd: I would be helpful if you viewed me as anti-sin, pro-God, anti-antiChrist:-) As I am not focused on just the Mormon cult but all cults and false teachings-this you will learn if you pay attention. Labels only lead to misunderstanding of others and confuses their beliefs. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
That's kind of along the same lines as what I was thinking. He used a jackass to speak with an errant prophet. He used Joseph's wicked brothers, He used Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians, and the Assyrians, along with the Persian King Cyrus to do his will. He can turn around what Satan means for evil - so why not the NIV? The called ones who are really serious and want to know the Lord will move on out of necessity. On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:31:22 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If He used a Jackass it may again be possible for Him to use the NIV.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for sharing your observation Christine, that encourages me because so many Churches use the NIV today. I'm with you in thinking it a horrible translation while ATST I believe God is faithful and able to use any of them for a season. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:24:23 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing??? Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. J As far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about
Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
If you want to know what Lance THINKS, read the articles he posted by someone else!Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Thanks for the input, Lance. It is always good to hear some thoughtful discourse on the different translations. Am I correct in understanding that you object to my statement that the KJV is the "best" translation? Do you mind if I ask why? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evaluating the New International VersionBefore we look at any of the "modern" Bible translations, it is important to understand some important concepts principles of linguistics and translation. Important Concepts in Bible Translation Before we begin looking at various Bible translations, there are some important concepts and principles that we need to consider and understand. Limits of Language When we talk about translation, we must first realize that any translation from one language to another has limits. All languages are not arranged in the same way. In fact, most languages are arranged differently. Grammar: Each language has its own grammatical rules. We cannot try to apply the grammar rules of one language to another directly. In the work of translating, the grammatical rules of each language must be respected. Semantic Range: The meaning of words in one language may not have the same range of meaning in another language (eg. - eros, agape, philos = English "love") Syntax: Syntax refers to the structure of phrases. Each language has a different way of putting sentences together. Some have verbs first and nouns second. Some have the adjective before a noun while others place the adjectives after the noun. Literal (verbal consistency) Some translations choose to translate the words of the original language directly. The responsibility is therefore on the reader to check out the meaning of the original word themselves. Whether it is a form of measurement or an archaic word, those who prefer to translate literally or word-for-word keep the exact word of the text. Idiomatic An idiomatic translation attempts to make the meaning of the passage clear, not just give a word-perfect translation. The idea here is that rather than make you find out what how big a "cubit" is, the translators give a modern measurement such as "feet" so that the reader understands the meaning. The translators do the background research into the ancient forms of measurement and provide a conversion rate that is mathematically equivalent. This can not only take place in relation to measurements and the like, but also can apply to concepts. An idiomatic translation uses a dynamic (or idiomatic) equivalent. Note: We never want to sacrifice historical accuracy (fidelity) for idiomatic _expression_. For example, just because everyone might not have an understanding of where Ephesus is located on a map, doesnt mean we change this word to an equivalent like "Edmonton." Dynamic equivalents are only useful when they do not change the accuracy of the passage. Our translations must not add or delete anything from the original meaning just for the sake of idioms. Your choice of literal vs. idiomatic is truly up to you in choosing a translation. Neither method is right or wrong. It really is a matter of preference. Some of you will prefer to do the research yourselves and keep the literal translation. Others of you may figure that your time can be better spent studying the text rather than researching the dynamic equivalent. There are various reasons one may choose an idiomatic or literal translation. Here are some: 1. Easy reading there are some place where a literal translation is quite easy to read and other places where a literal reading is almost non-sense because we do not understand the meaning of the words (the words havent been used for 400 years). Example: Matthew 3:15"Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." OR"We do well to conform in this way with all that God requires." 2. Easy understanding the main reason that a dynamic equivalent would be used is to make the meaning more clear. Again, rather than the reader having to try to interpret the image, the translators have converted the word to a modern equivalent that the reader can understand. Example: 1 Chronicles 26:18"...and for the parbar on the west there were four at the road and two at the parbar.""As for the court to the west, there were four [guards] at the road and two at the court itself." 3. Evangelistic Most of our Bibles have "theological" terminology in them. Of course, thats no surprise. The Bible is a book about theology. However, for the non-Christian, terms like "justification" may not mean a whole lot until they have had time to be taught the doctrines of the faith. Some translations are written specifically so that unchurched people can read and understand them, and so they use more idiomatic language rather than literal. Example: Matthew 3:8"Bear fruit that befits repentance.""Do the things that
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
If everyone who believed the KJV was the TRUTH happened to be FUNDAMENTALISTS and they all belonged to Bible Baptist Church of Pensacola Florida, it still has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. Some would, for lack of any Reasonable argument, like to focus the discussion on the Individual personalities and avoid the subject.The arguments have to be wieghed ontheir own merits. So too the Testimony of Logsdon.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting:Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comAnother baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes:"I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface.I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:"That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one is going to answer the questions I asked of deegan is evidence to me of the weakness of your argument. Dean , you use the KJ translatio n to defeat the NASV while completely missing the point of the various translations and assuming the very thing that is in question - the supremacy of the KJ bible. Jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:57:03 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/20/2005 7:21:16 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersOn Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:56:04 -0500 "Dean Moore" cd_moore@earthlink.net writes: cd: I don't believe we have to go to that extreme:-) As we do not hold to the versions that do this-also there is a difference between the degree of altercations in the NASV and the Book of
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
Why did he repent and what part did he repent of? F LOGSDON said "At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words."Read the rest of the article to see.Just like LDS one little mistake provides opportunity to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the LDS sphere, once one makes such a mistake their NEVER to be taken seriously again. No need to read the article if one wants to avoid the SUBJECT.The fact that someone was mistaken on what part Logsdon played has NO BEARING on the SUBJECT of LOGSDON's TESTIMONY! THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATIONS TESTIMONY in some deatils stands in direct CONFLICT with Mr Logsdon's. Somebody is not being honest.Here is the rest of the paragraph, which isPARTIALLY QUOTED in a previous post, to shield you from the WHOLE TRUTH I have three witnesses to Logsdon's involvement with the NASV that would stand up in a court of law: First, there is Logsdon's own spoken testimony which we have on audio cassette. This has been authenticated by Christians who knew him. Second, we know that Logsdon's widow in Wheaton, Illinois, has authenticated his testimony in regard to the NASV. Third, we have a copy of a letter from Logsdon to Cecil Carter of Prince George, British Columbia, June 9, 1977. I have known Brother Carter for many years. He is a faithful elder in a Brethren assembly and a respected member of his community. Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. He said he was a friend of Lockman and as such was invited to come out to California and help launch the venture. According to his own testimony and that of his widow, that is precisely what he did. Logsdon was a highly respected Bible teacher and author, and there is certainly no reason why he would have lied about these matters. He had nothing to gain thereby. To the contrary, he was considered a nut by many of his peers for taking a stand against the modern versions. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting:Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--)JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:32:09 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersAnother baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes:"I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface.I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?I don't want anything to do
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm LOGSDON: "Well, he discovered that the copyright [on the American Standard Version of 1901] was just as loose as a fumbled ball on a football field. Nobody wanted it. The publishers didn't want it. It didn't get anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me and said, Would you and Ann come out and spend some weeks with us, and we'll work on a feasibility report; I can pick up the copyright to the 1901 if it seems advisable. "Dr. David Otis Fuller in Grand Rapids [Michigan]. I've known him for 35 years, and he would say (he would call me Frank; I'd call him Duke), Frank, what about this? You had a part in it; what about this; what about that? And at first I thought, Now, wait a minute; let's don't go overboard; let's don't be too critical. You know how you justify yourself the last minute. "But I finally got to the place where I said, 'Ann, I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?' Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life, I think. CLOUD: We don't know the motive for this communication from the Lockman Foundation; apparently they are giving information based on their resources at hand. Obviously they don't have all the facts. This was admitted to me by a translator who represents the Lockman Foundation and the New American Standard Version. In an e-mail message to me dated February 16, 1996, Dr. Don Wilkins said, "Perhaps the truth of the whole matter is that none of us has all the facts about the situation." I have three witnesses to Logsdon's involvement with the NASV[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim period. He was neither a translator of the NASVas you claim below nor did he work on the project.But what was most interestingwas how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again).In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , walla, he even adm its that this is not true. Case closed Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersWhether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting:Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comAnother baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes:"I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface.I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
Dean, looks like Logsdon saw it like you!"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard." Logsdon: "The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"http://www.biblebelieversbaptist.org/logsdon.htm S. Frank Logsdons Testimony For instance, there are in the revisions (1881 and 1901), so we are told 5337 deletions, subtractions if you please. And here is the way it is done. It is done so subtly that very few would discover it. For instance, in the New American Standard we are told that 16 times the word "Christ" is gone. When you are reading through you perhaps wouldn't miss many of them. Some you might. And 10 or 12 times the word "Lord" is gone. For instance, if you were in a church when the pastor is speaking on the words of the Lord Jesus in His temptation, "Get thee behind me, Satan," if you have a New American Standard you wouldn't even find it. It's not even in there. And there are so many such deletions. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim period. He was neither a translator of the NASVas you claim below nor did he work on the project.But what was most interestingwas how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again).In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , walla, he even adm its that this is not true. Case closed Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersWhether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting:Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comAnother baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes:"I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface.I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived ..
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:CD says 'their' Rabbi(s) instruct 'them' NOT TO READ ISAIAH
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 7:35:26 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:CD says 'their' Rabbi(s) instruct 'them' NOT TO READ ISAIAH - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:44 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To 'cd':You employed the plural 'Rabbi(s)' As to the 'tape recorder you didn't have' fine. How 'bout your memory? The location(s), Rabbi(s) names, the words spoken as best you can recall them. I'd settle for this. Cd : As I said before believe me or not your choice-makes no difference to me. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:39 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
God knows those that are His. Those that refuse His Truth are not going to be given more TruthJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's kind of along the same lines as what I was thinking. He used a jackass to speak with an errant prophet. He used Joseph's wicked brothers, He used Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians, and the Assyrians, along with the Persian King Cyrus to do his will. He can turn around what Satan means for evil - so why not the NIV? The called ones who are really serious and want to know the Lord will move on out of necessity. On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:31:22 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:If He used a Jackass it may again be possible for Him to use the NIV.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for sharing your observation Christine, that encourages me because so many Churches use the NIV today. I'm with you in thinking it a horrible translation while ATST I believe God is faithful and able to use any of them for a season. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:24:23 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing???Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. JAs far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively. When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 9:24:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice.. cd To demand that others accept what you have to say simply based upon the fact that you made the claim is not reasonable. There are many things taught on TT that are not a part of the teaching of the larger church. Perhaps those who spoke against reading Isaiah were not presenting a teaching of the Mormon church -- just a couple of lame ducks doing their thing. Or, maybe they were concerned for their version of the truth and only wanted to postpone this reading? Lots of possibilities. If their advice is the teaching of the Mormon Church, then Lance's request for more info is a righteous one. You continually speak of the NASV as a book that removes the words of Christ -- something that is untrue. Is my only choice to call you a liar because I do not agree with you? I think not. I will assume that you cannot present the info Lance requested. Jd cd: To start with I was speaking about Jews not Mormons. Second -There werewords removed from-Luke 4:4 in theNASV-if you cared to look. And thirdly-I am not getting into the prove it game with you ,Dave ,Lance or Gary. I related a conversation I had with Jews-nothing more. If you called me a liar because you didn't agree with me that is between you and God-but to call him a liar is a whole different ballgame-If He said there is a hell-then there is a hell. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:39:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books)-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:53:09 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Ive also been told by a Jew that the messianic chapters in Isaiah are not included in the Torah readings. izzy cd: Be careful izzy-if you relay that info to those guys-they will try and discredit you. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean MooreSent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:40 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books) -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
- Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:57:20 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! JD, what do Rabbis have to do with the mormon guys iz cd: He had no idea-He just wants to jump in and attack my character. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:25 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice.. cd To demand that others accept what you have to say simply based upon the fact that you made the claim is not reasonable. There are many things taught on TT that are not a part of the teaching of the larger church. Perhaps those who spoke against reading Isaiah were not presenting a teaching of the Mormon church -- just a couple of lame ducks doing their thing. Or, maybe they were concerned for their version of the truth and only wanted to postpone this reading? Lots of possibilities. If their advice is the teaching of the Mormon Church, then Lance's request for more info is a righteous one. You continually speak of the NASV as a book that removes the words of Christ -- something that is untrue. Is my only choice to call you a liar because I do not agree with you? I think not. I will assume that you cannot present the info Lance requested. Jd -Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:39:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books) -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receive things I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
- Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:24:26 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean? cd: Sis -You do as God leads you-but consider this. For the rest of you study groups lives they will dwell on Satan's turf (ie enemy territory) wouldn't you want them have to the strongest weapon possible- If they were my friends I would try and take their pee-shooters away and give them a shotgun to fight with -such as the KJV:-) Stronger book /stronger weapon/stronger warrior. All truths are fought over in this world-so fight the good fight as you did at the University of Miami.Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing??? Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. J As far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively. When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much?
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 5:29:01 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? If someone is STEALING away the words of Christ as you contend Dean, why get bent out of shape over that? cd: Men fought and died so we could get the KJV-we should fight to keep it.Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should take a stand on the issue of translations. I am not saying to shrug and remain unpartial. But to question someone's salvation over the topic is taking it pretty far, don't you think? I think the NIV is a horrible translation, but I do not crusade for the KJV at all the Bible Studies I attend. It should not be a stumbling block. Also, another thing I have noticed is that younger Christians tend to read the NIV, and usually grow out of it because it is a poor translation.. Do you think I should be more emphatic about this issue, Dean?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: And what if the other versions are notcomplete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ-How do you view that Christine? Should one get bent out of shape over that? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:40:50 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Does it REALLY matter that much? Hello Pete! I think you bring up excellent points, and I agree with your position that while the KJV is the best translation, it is harmful to get "bent out of shape" over the issue. I am taking an introductory course to Islam right now, and I thought I would point out that the Quran has been kept in the same Arabic throughout the ages. The Quran has been translated into other languages, but Muslims do not consider those the word of God, and all Muslims must learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran in its original language. The result is awful. They worship the book: you have to handle it with a certain hand, if you are not a Muslim you cannot touch it, if you are Muslim, you must wash before touching it lest you desecrate it. In public forums, Muslims will boast that their book has been unchanged, and is therefore perfect, and I wonder if this fact has contributed to leading these people further into idolotry of the book itself (aside from the fact that they fo llow false gods: that would also contribute to the idolotry). I think this just goes to show you not to get so consumed with the physical aspects of spiritual matters.This Islam stuff is something else.Blessings!Christine Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brothers and Sisters in Christ do you have an answer for Daves question as to why we allow our Bibles to remove God's words with no objections and cut Smith to pieces for doing the same thing??? Pete responds: We really didnt ALLOW this to happen. It just did. J As far as translations are concerned, from what I have read, I think that the KJV is probably the closest to the original in most cases. Thats just me though. My preference is the KJV; but some verses, IMHO, read better in different versions. Do I make a big deal about? No, because I have seen one of my good friends get real bent out of shape about it. It got so bad, that he almost accused me of not being saved because I didnt agree with him. He also told me that the NIV would be used by the New Age people to deceive people in the last days. He has separated himself from other Christians because of his belief about the KJV. When it becomes divisive that Christians cant even come together and fellowship, then something is wrong. I know people who love God and dont read the KJV exclusively. When I was born again, I read through the NIV New Testament. I learned a lot and was growing in the Lord with that version. I eventually got a Thompson Chain reference because it was recommended by a good friend. I eventually got used to the KJV, but today, I like the NKJV and KJV, but sometimes I like to read the Amplified Version because the wording is picturesque. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 9:42:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons Am I wrong?DAVEH: Yes. cd: Are you stating that you prophet is wrong?Maybe there is hope for you.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Are you asking a Mormon what he believes, or telling him what he believes?Remember Dave "The prophet is always right"? cd: Am I wrong?Dean Moore wrote: cd: Lance maybe you should know that the current prophet ( Gordon B.Hinckley) is loved more than Smith and His words arereceived as Gospel. He can actually change the Mormon religious structure. Remember Dave "The prophet is always right"? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
cd: Judy have you noticed that these guys not only ignore truth but also attack the one giving the truth-even when they are shown to be wrong. One must wonder how is it that the Holy Spirit doesn't help them? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 5:09:55 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers Another testimony: S. Franklin Logsdon (1907-1987) was a respected evangelical pastor and popular Bible conference speaker. He preached at Bible conferences (such as Moody Founder's Week) with well-known evangelists and pastors such as Billy Graham and Paul Smith of People's Church in Toronto. In the 1950s Logsdon was invited by his businessman friend Franklin Dewey Lockman to prepare a feasibility study which led to the production of the New American Standard Version (NASV). He also helped interview some of the men who served as translators for this version. He wrote the Foreword which appears in the NASV. As we see in the following testimony, in the later years of his life Logsdon publicly renounced his association with the modern versions and stood unhesitatingly for the King James Bible. [from: TESTIMONY OF A COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION By S. Frank Logsdon] ***Since this confession is not good for business is it any wonder his businessman friend's Corporation is in denial ? On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:24:10 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers Dean, looks like Logsdon saw it like you! cd: I will not make that mistake again its KJV only for me from not on. "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard." Logsdon: "The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?" http://www.biblebelieversbaptist.org/logsdon.htm S. Frank Logsdons Testimony For instance, there are in the revisions (1881 and 1901), so we are told 5337 deletions, subtractions if you please. And here is the way it is done. It is done so subtly that very few would discover it. For instance, in the New American Standard we are told that 16 times the word "Christ" is gone. When you are reading through you perhaps wouldn't miss many of them. Some you might. And 10 or 12 times the word "Lord" is gone. For instance, if you were in a church when the pastor is speaking on the words of the Lord Jesus in His temptation, "Get thee behind me, Satan," if you have a New American Standard you wouldn't even find it. It's not even in there. And there are so many such deletions. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim period. He was neither a translator of the NASVas you claim below nor did he work on the project.But what was most interestingwas how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again).In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , walla, he even adm its that this is not true. Case closed Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
cd: see the Bottom of page. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 10:08:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since the theme has been that of perfection, I thought I would keep it going with a look at Hebrews 10.14. The KJV says, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they? Well, not if one's concern is with holding true to the "pure" word of God as set forth in the"Received Text." In the Greek this participle is a present tense in the passive voice. If one were desiring to reflect that voice in his translation and thereby hold true to the grammar and intent of the "majority text," this participle would best be translated as "those who are being sanctified," thereby reflecting asanctification which is passive (i.e.., the action is being pe rformed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete. Hence according to this, Christ has perfected forever (a completed action), not those who are presently sanctified (also a completed action), butthose who are in the process of being sanctified: a fairly significant difference, it seems to me. Bill So this is an example of how the KJV is in error Bill? IMO the error is with your understanding rather than with the text of theKJV translation. You have read something into the text that is not there and have madea straw man to knock down. The word sanctification does not necessarily mean an action being performed; the same word is used in 1 Cor 7:14 for an unbelieving wife who is sanctified (set apart, consecrated) by the faith of her husband. In this sense "sanctified" means something entirely different from what you describe. SoIOW "By one offering Jesus has perfected for ever them that are set apart, consecrated (or sanctified)." I have a huge banner that says the same thing you banner say on 1 John 2:4-I will send you a picture of it sis :-) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
RE: [TruthTalk] 'The other versions are not complete and have actually
cd :Luke 4:4 says that "Man cannot live by bread alone" in the NASV-while the KJ reads" Man cannot live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" ( quoted from memory ). The OT is also in agreement with the KJ in Duet 8:3 on this same verse. This is just one verse we discussed there are many. The Hebrew text and the Greek text also shows that the rest of this verse was there. Somebody is in trouble. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:38:19 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] 'The other versions are not complete and have actually removed some of the word of Christ.' (quote from 'cd') Would you be so kind as to expand, explain and demonstrate what you've just said herein? Further, 'I agree with your position that the KJV is the BEST TRANSLATION..' (quote from Christine) Would you be so kind as to expand, explain and demonstrate what you've just said herein?
RE: [TruthTalk] Islam is based on Law
Hey Pete, Do the ones teaching these courses consider the fact that Islam is based on a false revelation given to Mohammad in a desert cave by an angel of light which is similar to the way Joseph Smith received his revelation prior to translating and penning the Book of Mormon. Neither know anything about God or His will, they are walking in deception after havingbeen deceived. Pete responds: The course I took was actually a course offered by The Teaching Company which are college classes you can take on video. Incidentally, the teachers that this company uses are some of the best in the country. Go to: http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp for more information. I have bought several of these courses and have found most of them to be very enlightening. Christine, I HIGHLY recommend the music courses by Robert Greenberg. J The professor I listened to, did not approach the subject as actually being a revelation from God, but as an alleged revelation. It was a purely Middle Eastern perspective of what the Islam religion believes which included the pillars of their faith. It also dealt with the Muslim religion in how they react to the Western mindset. The course I had is not the same as the one they offer now. If I remember correctly, he was a professor who taught in Jordan. I taught a humanities class once and did a unit on Islam. As most false religions do, they miss who Jesus is and dont recognize that the ONLY way to the Father is through Him. I dont know a whole lot about the Mormons, so I really cant comment with any kind of intelligent response. Pete On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:59:45 -0600 Peter Krostag [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Christine. Good to hear from you! You certainly are on the right track here. I took a course on Islam taught by someone who lived in the Middle East. As you are finding out, it is primarily based on works and not faith. Islamic law has been seen as the blueprint to guiding Muslims' correct action, that is, what to do in their public and private lives in order to realize God's will. Sufism try to experience a more direct and personal sense of God. Sensing God and knowing Him are two completely different things. Pete judyt He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians
cd: Good to at someone support us Judy while the whole world is against us-Without God we can do nothing but fail:-) May God bless you and His light shine upon you bringing you peace:-) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 11:45:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians This is interesting ... The anti-Christian site is obeying the will of their father with a false scenario. Why are the girls in black out there singing? They certainly don't look rehearsed or even focused and in the past I have been told that their sole purpose was to drown out the street preachers. The choice Dean presents here is exactly right. Truth vs error, light vs darkness, and life as opposed to death. All of us must choose this day we we will serve Kevin Deegan wrote: Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians
cd: Thank you-God is the one who gives the words:-) - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:43:22 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians Amen, Dean! I thought you spoke very well on the subject. And what is un-Christian about preaching Christ?? JD or Lance? Did you find find his preaching offensive? Am I just desensitized to preachers? :-)Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is interesting ... The anti-Christian site is obeying the will of their father with a false scenario. Why are the girls in black out there singing? They certainly don't look rehearsed or even focused and in the past I have been told that their sole purpose was to drown out the street preachers. The choice Dean presents here is exactly right. Truth vs error, light vs darkness, and life as opposed to death. All of us must choose this day we we will serve Kevin Deegan wrote: Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
- Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 9:53:28 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. DAVEH: Hmmmare we back to that, Dean? When did I ever say there was not a hell? If you cannot produce a specific quote where I said such, then I respectfully ask you to withdraw this false charge. cd: Are we back to that again-I proved you wrong on the last five time you asked this will you not learn? Remember we had a debate and I used a dictionary tol silence you because you said that Hell was a parable-and I showed you in the dictionary that a parable adds to the explanation of the object not takes from it- Wewere debating the rich man who lifted his eyes up from hell-=and the parable explained it was hot and the rich man was in torment in the flames-and there was no water there to cool his tongue-and the great void that no man could cross.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Just me Dean, or do you understand that you will be judged as well? cd: Yes and that is why I try to live by the words of the Bible-do you? O-You don't believe the words of Christ-He said there was a Hell and you disagree which is callingJesus a liar and God a liar. Well we will see whom the liar is on that Day -you or Christ.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
cd: No I did not have a wad of chew and I am not drunk-Have you not heard of edification to the brethren? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 11:05:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! I'm in the house to get some coffee and off to the shop -- but, who is Dean in the video? The guy with the hat, who looks like hehas a wad of chew? Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Apparently most believing perichoresis types also chew !! But is that Dean? JD Bye for now. -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:58:11 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: Thank you for sharing that, Kevin. After watching Dean preach, I do not understand why he claims not to protest Mormonism. Seems to me that is exactly what he was doing. Do you disagree? BTW.I rather like the tag line, as it speaks volumes: Real Christians behave like Christians.Kevin Deegan wrote: Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that might qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean. Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, please let me dissuade you from the false assumption that being called "anti-mormon" by mormons bothers anyone any more than being called a "homophobe" by sodomites. It only makes the name-caller feel better, but falls on the ground beyond that. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: I can only view you from my perspective, Dean. And my perspective is that I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's True Church. Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that mig ht qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean Moore wrote: Dean Moore wrote: cd: Dave satisfy my curiosity. As I answered your questions here DAVEH: Yes, and I thank you for that, Dean. Because of that I'll be happy to reciprocate, even though you are an anti-Mormon. cd: I would be helpful if you viewed me as anti-sin, pro-God, anti-antiChrist:-) As I am not focused on just the Mormon cult but all cults and false teachings-this you will learn if you pay attention. Labels only lead to misunderstanding of others and confuses their beliefs.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I thought dean asked for a KJV ERRORInstead he gets a response that deals with INTERPRETATION Dean sees it one way Bill sees it another, that makes the TEXT wrong?BIG DEAL : (Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: see the Bottom of page. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 10:08:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since the theme has been that of perfection, I thought I would keep it going with a look at Hebrews 10.14. The KJV says, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they? Well, not if one's concern is with holding true to the "pure" word of God as set forth in the"Received Text." In the Greek this participle is a present tense in the passive voice. If one were desiring to reflect that voice in his translation and thereby hold true to the grammar and intent of the "majority text," this participle would best be translated as "those who are being sanctified," thereby reflecting asanctification which is passive (i.e.., the action is being pe rformed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete. Hence according to this, Christ has perfected forever (a completed action), not those who are presently sanctified (also a completed action), butthose who are in the process of being sanctified: a fairly significant difference, it seems to me. BillSo this is an example of how the KJV is in error Bill? IMO the error is with your understanding rather than with the text of theKJV translation. You have read something into the text that is not there and have madea straw man to knock down. The word sanctification does not necessarily mean an action being performed; the same word is used in 1 Cor 7:14 for an unbelieving wife who is sanctified (set apart, consecrated) by the faith of her husband. In this sense "sanctified" means something entirely different from what you describe. SoIOW "By one offering Jesus has perfected for ever them that are set apart, consecrated (or sanctified)."I have a huge banner that says the same thing you banner say on 1 John 2:4-I will send you a picture of it sis :-) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
Truth like beauty must be in the eye of the beholder Dean (Titus 1:15). I don't see anything JD describes on that video I observed you speaking as the oracles of God alongsidethe brother with the underwear- with both of youbehaving circumspectly. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:51:40 -0500 "Dean Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: cd: No I did not have a wad of chew and I am not drunk-Have you not heard of edification to the brethren? From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org I'm in the house to get some coffee and off to the shop -- but, who is Dean in the video? The guy with the hat, who looks like hehas a wad of chew? Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Apparently most believing perichoresis types also chew !! But is that Dean? JD Bye for now. From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: Thank you for sharing that, Kevin. After watching Dean preach, I do not understand why he claims not to protest Mormonism. Seems to me that is exactly what he was doing. Do you disagree? BTW.I rather like the tag line, as it speaks volumes: Real Christians behave like Christians.Kevin Deegan wrote: Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that might qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean. Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, please let me dissuade you from the false assumption that being called "anti-mormon" by mormons bothers anyone any more than being called a "homophobe" by sodomites. It only makes the name-caller feel better, but falls on the ground beyond that. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: I can only view you from my perspective, Dean. And my perspective is that I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's True Church. Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that mig ht qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean Moore wrote: Dean Moore wrote: cd: Dave satisfy my curiosity. As I answered your questions here DAVEH: Yes, and I thank you for that, Dean. Because of that I'll be happy to reciprocate, even though you are an anti-Mormon. cd: I would be helpful if you viewed me as anti-sin, pro-God, anti-antiChrist:-) As I am not focused on just the Mormon cult but all cults and false teachings-this you will learn if you pay attention. Labels only lead to misunderstanding of others and confuses their beliefs.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians
Maybe that is it?Dean preaches choose for yourself Truth or Error Light or dark Life or deathLDS prophet says 'When the leader speaks the thinking has been DONE.'Someone is upset Dean is telling them to Choose THINK for themselves!Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: Good to at someone support us Judy while the whole world is against us-Without God we can do nothing but fail:-) May God bless you and His light shine upon you bringing you peace:-) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 11:45:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like ChristiansThis is interesting ... The anti-Christian site is obeying the will of their father with a false scenario. Why are the girls in black out there singing? They certainly don't look rehearsed or even focused and in the past I have been told that their sole purpose was to drown out the street preachers. The choice Dean presents here is exactly right. Truth vs error, light vs darkness, and life as opposed to death. All of us must choose this day we we will serve Kevin Deegan wrote: Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like Christians
Sounded pretty Mean spirited telling them to Choose Truth or Error NOT!Can't wait to hear what the big flap is from our local LDSDean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: Thank you-God is the one who gives the words:-) - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 12:43:22 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real Christians behave like ChristiansAmen, Dean! I thought you spoke very well on the subject. And what is un-Christian about preaching Christ?? JD or Lance? Did you find find his preaching offensive? Am I just desensitized to preachers? :-)Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is interesting ... The anti-Christian site is obeying the will of their father with a false scenario. Why are the girls in black out there singing? They certainly don't look rehearsed or even focused and in the past I have been told that their sole purpose was to drown out the street preachers. The choice Dean presents here is exactly right. Truth vs error, light vs darkness, and life as opposed to death. All of us must choose this day we we will serve Kevin Deegan wrote: Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!
Not that anyone would DANCE around the subject and focus on the personalities. Alas in this case the wrong ones, as he is LDS.Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: No I did not have a wad of chew and I am not drunk-Have you not heard of edification to the brethren? - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 11:05:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!I'm in the house to get some coffee and off to the shop -- but, who is Dean in the video? The guy with the hat, who looks like hehas a wad of chew? Nothing wrong with that, by the way. Apparently most believing perichoresis types also chew !! But is that Dean? JD Bye for now. -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:58:11 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere! DAVEH: Thank you for sharing that, Kevin. After watching Dean preach, I do not understand why he claims not to protest Mormonism. Seems to me that is exactly what he was doing. Do you disagree? BTW.I rather like the tag line, as it speaks volumes: Real Christians behave like Christians.Kevin Deegan wrote: Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that might qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean is FEATURED on this ANTI-CHRISTIAN site. What EXACTLY is he saying that is wrong here?http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/media/street03bh.wmv Allen L. Wyatt, "Anti-Mormon Protesters at the April 2003 LDS General Conference," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) In this short video clip, an anti-Mormon protester at the April 2003 General Conference shouts his opinions about the Book of Mormon, drowning out nearby missionaries trying to sing hymns. Another protester waves temple garments at passersby.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DaveH, please let me dissuade you from the false assumption that being called "anti-mormon" by mormons bothers anyone any more than being called a "homophobe" by sodomites. It only makes the name-caller feel better, but falls on the ground beyond that. izFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of DaveSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!DAVEH: I can only view you from my perspective, Dean. And my perspective is that I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's True Church. Have you ever protested at an LDS Conference in SLC, or at the site of an LDS Temple or chapel? If notwould you do so? If so, then you would meet the one of the criteria of being an anti-Mormon as LDS folks have coined it. If you haven't done any of those things (or others that mig ht qualify you for that label), then perhaps I owe you an apology, Dean.Dean Moore wrote: Dean Moore wrote: cd: Dave satisfy my curiosity. As I answered your questions here DAVEH: Yes, and I thank you for that, Dean. Because of that I'll be happy to reciprocate, even though you are an anti-Mormon. cd: I would be helpful if you viewed me as anti-sin, pro-God, anti-antiChrist:-) As I am not focused on just the Mormon cult but all cults and false teachings-this you will learn if you pay attention. Labels only lead to misunderstanding of others and confuses their beliefs.-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
KJV For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman FoundationFor by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Youngs Literal translation for by one offering he hath perfected to the end those sanctified ASV For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. NKJV For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. NIV because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.If Christ's offering gives eternal perfection, as the first half of the verse claims, why does the rest of the verse say that we are BEING 'perfected'?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: see the Bottom of page. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 10:08:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since the theme has been that of perfection, I thought I would keep it going with a look at Hebrews 10.14. The KJV says, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." A cursory reading of this verse may leave one with the impression that the "perfected"are thosewhose sanctification is complete: they are, after all, "sanctified," aren't they? Well, not if one's concern is with holding true to the "pure" word of God as set forth in the"Received Text." In the Greek this participle is a present tense in the passive voice. If one were desiring to reflect that voice in his translation and thereby hold true to the grammar and intent of the "majority text," this participle would best be translated as "those who are being sanctified," thereby reflecting asanctification which is passive (i.e.., the action is being pe rformed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete. Hence according to this, Christ has perfected forever (a completed action), not those who are presently sanctified (also a completed action), butthose who are in the process of being sanctified: a fairly significant difference, it seems to me. BillSo this is an example of how the KJV is in error Bill? IMO the error is with your understanding rather than with the text of theKJV translation. You have read something into the text that is not there and have madea straw man to knock down. The word sanctification does not necessarily mean an action being performed; the same word is used in 1 Cor 7:14 for an unbelieving wife who is sanctified (set apart, consecrated) by the faith of her husband. In this sense "sanctified" means something entirely different from what you describe. SoIOW "By one offering Jesus has perfected for ever them that are set apart, consecrated (or sanctified)."I have a huge banner that says the same thing you banner say on 1 John 2:4-I will send you a picture of it sis :-) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!
You have me confused with someone else. Might ask Lance or maybe Dean -- whoever but not me. :-)-Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:57:12 -0600Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! JD, what do Rabbi?s have to do with the mormon guys iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:25 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice.. cd To demand that others accept what you have to say simply based upon the fact that you made the claim is not reasonable. There are many things taught on TT that are not a part of the teaching of the larger church. Perhaps those who spoke against reading Isaiah were not presenting a teaching of the Mormon church -- just a couple of lame ducks doing their thing. Or, maybe they were concerned for their version of the truth and only wanted to postpone this reading? Lots of possibilities. If their advice is the teaching of the Mormon Church, then Lance's request for more info is a righteous one. You continually speak of the NASV as a book that removes the words of Christ -- something that is untrue. Is my only choice to call you a liar because I do not agree with you? I think not. I will assume that you cannot present the info Lance requested. Jd -Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:39:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 6:32:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! To Dean Moore: I'd truly appreciate all of the evidence you can supply to buttress your point that 'Their Rabbi(s) instruct them not to read Isaiah'. Lance cd: Well I didn't have a tape recorder on me at the time so you will just have to take my word that I have been told that-or not and call me a liar-your choice. - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 06:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/21/2005 3:01:51 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP! I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. DAVEH: What would you say to the Jews who use that same argument against your Christian message? cd: I have told them to study the book of Isaiah as Christ is also in that book and many other places in the Torah.Their Rabbi(s) instructs them not to read Isaiah-interesting huh?Yes I preach to Jews also.Dean Moore wrote: DAVEH: Yes, certainly. Butwe probably define Christians differently than you do. I believe that one who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ is a Christian. From our past discussions, I suspect that you have a much narrower definition of the term. Care to share it? cd: I believe that this "Jesus" must be based on the Bible alone-not extra-biblical sources. Heaven is the narrow way as no problem with my more narrow view. The broad way is the one to keep an eye on(ie. extra- biblical books) -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
[TruthTalk] UF update
Last Friday's preach: http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051121cops.php Peace be with you. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
But he was not a translator as you claimed and he did no work on the translation. I could care less if he decided to become a KJV cultish. Your face saving efforts are unimportant. Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:09:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers Another testimony: S. Franklin Logsdon (1907-1987) was a respected evangelical pastor and popular Bible conference speaker. He preached at Bible conferences (such as Moody Founder's Week) with well-known evangelists and pastors such as Billy Graham and Paul Smith of People's Church in Toronto. In the 1950s Logsdon was invited by his businessman friend Franklin Dewey Lockman to prepare a feasibility study which led to the production of the New American Standard Version (NASV). He also helped interview some of the men who served as translators for this version. He wrote the Foreword which appears in the NASV. As we see in the following testimony, in the later years of his life Logsdon publicly renounced his association with the modern versions and stood unhesitatingly for the King James Bible. [from: TESTIMONY OF A COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION By S. Frank Logsdon] ***Since this confession is not good for business is it any wonder his businessman friend's Corporation is in denial ? On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:42:42 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor. NASV is based upon a greektext that is olderthan the Church controlled Byzantine text of the 1500's. There is nothing sinister or worthy of "repentance"in the translating of the NASV.The fact that no one is going
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
I denied that a translator repented. Here is what you said: I read somewhere that one of the NASB translators had a change of heart and repented for the part he played in that translation.It is now painfully obvious that an NASB translator did not repent.That is a fact ... and that is what I was talking about. The statement above, in green, is not true. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:15:46 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers NO JD - the issue is tied to your denial that Logsdon repented of anything at all. You called it a "SILLY RUMOR" (see below) This is what I addressed. The word translator is neither here nor there so far as I am concerned. This is Logsdon's own claim (not mine) so your argument is with him and if you want to believe a lie Oh well!! On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:00:01 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim period. He was neither a translator of the NASVas you claim below nor did he work on the project.But what was most interestingwas how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again).In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , wal la, he even adm its that this is not true. Case closed Jd From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Whether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judyt On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting: Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Another baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes: "I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ... When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ... If you must stand against everyone else, stand." On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:21:58 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "That guy" did
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers
It is OK I think Logsdon went to Slidell[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I denied that a translator repented. Here is what you said: I read somewhere that one of the NASB translators had a change of heart and repented for the part he played in that translation.It is now painfully obvious that an NASB translator did not repent.That is a fact ... and that is what I was talking about. The statement above, in green, is not true. JD-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:15:46 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersNO JD - the issue is tied to your denial that Logsdon repented of anything at all. You called it a "SILLY RUMOR" (see below) This is what I addressed. The word translator is neither here nor there so far as I am concerned. This is Logsdon's own claim (not mine) so your argument is with him and if you want to believe a lie Oh well!! On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:00:01 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have to get out the door -- but this is a less than honest response, Judy. You could not have possibly missed the point that the issue is tied to the word "TRANSLATOR." This was your claim and as such, it is a false claim period. He was neither a translator of the NASVas you claim below nor did he work on the project.But what was most interestingwas how you got out of having to admit that you were wrong (again).In debate -- I always quote the opposition (if possible). It makes for a better apologetic. Cloud is clearly NOT on my side of the issue. If anyone had a reason to press this false claim, it would be Cloud (other than yourself, of course) and , wal la, he even adm its that this is not true. Case closed JdFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comWhether the Lockman Foundation who Logsdon claims "did it for the money" wants to honor his confession is beside the point. Fact is he did "repent" so it is NOT a "SILLY RUMOR" as you claim. No the accuser is as well ensconsed as ever... and I am really surprised that you would seek the counsel and dare to post the findings of David Cloud who would be as far from your theology as east is from the west. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:49:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The claim was first posed to this forum as arumor -- with no names,details, or supporting evidence. You now restate the claim (that a TRANSLATOR of the NASV repented) and once again have associated me with the "accuser." You and others just cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks. It is apparently impossible, in your case and Mr Deegan's. The following is a statement taken from a conservative Baptist KJV only site concerning this rumor of a TRANSLATOR repenting:Part of the problem has been caused by some who have made claims for Logsdon which he did not himself make. Note that Logsdon never said that he actually worked on the NASV or the Amplified Bible translation or that he was an actual employee of the Lockman Foundation. He did not claim to be "co-founder" of the NASV. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm Have a nice day. Apparently the "accuser" has changed residences :--) JD From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comAnother baseless accusation JD? how is it that some ppl just can't learn to recognize the accuser when he comes? What you call a "silly rumor" is as follows: The NASV translator is Dr. Frank Logsdon and he writes:"I must under God renounce every attachment to eh New American Standard. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord .. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface.I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's fighteningly wrong and what am I going to do about it? I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening .. there are so many .. Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?I don't want anything to do with it ... The finest leaders that we have today ... haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived .. I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeing, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things ... You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ...
