date:20051122





DAVEH: In trying to clean up my inbox, I did finally run across Part
Deux, Lance. However, I think I already responded to it in your
subsequent question a day or so ago.

 As I see it, your perception is partially correct. (That when
religions are dependent upon a singular
'funnel'.) As I view the Lord's Church though, the gospel
is not revealed strictly through a singular
'funnel', but rather through a series of prophets to whom
God reveals his secrets. (Amos 3:7) That's why the same argument
fails against Christianity. IFF Christianity were only revealed
through Jesus, it would be hard to criticize somebody for being
skeptical. But the Lord has told us that he will deliver through two
or more witnesses. I believe that is one factor that makes prophets so
important. We don't have to rely on just one to reveal the Word. The
Bible has given many, and it is not inconceivable that the Lord has
given many more than recorded in the Bible. Soeven IFF one (such
as JS) were to fail, that alone hardly condemns the gospel message.
IFF it did, then one might conclude that Judas' betrayal of Jesus
condemned the gospel message taught by all the prophets.


Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  IMO, unlike ALL of the CHRISTIAN
Traditions, your framework of belief can be likened unto a 'house of
cards'. It is somewhat akin to solipsism.(IFF the 'prophet' goes
(Joseph Smith) then, the whole framework goes).
  
  Further, you will find that all such
sects have a singular 'funnel' (usually a teacher, prophet)
through whom all 'correct' understanding is filtered.
  
  Footnote:I and several others have
been seen as depending too much on some teachers -Torrance(s), Polanyi
et al. Let me speak for myself on this. This can be a dangerous
business and, I'm very aware that none of these is 'inspired' in their
dogma. They have their exegetical/theological weaknesses. Such have
been evidenced in the work of postgraduate students.)
  
  Would you acknowledge that IFF
Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be that the whole structure
(books received from Moroni etc.) would collapse?
  
  Persons do live what they believe.
IFF the 'rapture' teaching is exegetically mistaken; IFF things
continue for another 25,000 years (are we in the 'end of the age'?)
then, people would be governing their lives on untruth.
  
  He (Joseph Smith) is the tree and
you are the branches. IFF the tree is rooted in a lie..?
  
  RSVP


-- 
~~~
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] Intent of the Law





DAVEH: Like I've said, IzzyI owe you more than you might imagine.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  


  
  
  
  Then why are
you still a mormon?
Apparently you have learned nothing. iz
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  DAVEH: I respectfully
disagree,
Izzy. I've learned a lot from my tenure hereeven from you.
  
ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  Thats
why I dont waste my
time arguing with mormons. They have no true curiosity about what we
believe at all IMO. iz
  
  
  
  
  
  


-- 
~~~
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] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon
belief

DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere
about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you
will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.

Dean Moore wrote:

  
  
  cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements
and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty
words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe
material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why
are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We
ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you
refuse? Why are you here?
  
  
  



-- 
~~~
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] Emailing: NIV.htm




Christine:For your consideration:Think globally. 
Consider every believer and, the 'translation' from which they are reading. How 
many are reading the KJV. What are the implications?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 21, 2005 17:59
  Subject: 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 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, 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

[TruthTalk] CD says 'I related a conversation I had with 'Jews' NOTHING MORE




That's better 'cd'. This is the stuff of urban 
legends. ('a conversation - now singular  'Jews'-which Jews would those 
be?)

Well DaveH, I come to understand your not taking 
such as this (cd) seriously.

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version



A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian 
Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a 
written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire 
Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who 
was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be 
changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was 
not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 21, 2005 16:32
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  
  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 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, 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version



Interesting answer Lance,
So what are you saying? Should God's Word be 
dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali 
  (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct 
  a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the 
  entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a 
  Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had 
  to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). 
  This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the 
  globe?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Christine 
Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: November 21, 2005 16:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
NIV.htm

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 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, 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

[TruthTalk] Another baseless Accusation...







Could it be that California 
rarified air? You need to own your own error JD 
and do the right thing by taking responsibility. You wrote:
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

Butchered by the critics penknife  Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, in foot-notes and 
translations, have changed and mutilated the Greek text in about six thousand 
places. This is why we have so many omissions in our modern Bibles. Words 
omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics are counted as not authentic 
according to brain-washed modern scholarship. With a red pencil mark all these 
omissions which occur in your Bible and prepare yourself for a big surprise.
Matthew

  1:25 firstborn is omitted. 
  5:44 bless them that curse you is omitted. 
  6:13: kingdom, power, glory is omitted. 
  6:27 stature is changed. 
  6:33 of God is omitted. 
  8:29 Jesus is omitted (as Son of God). 
  9:13 to repentance is omitted (in calling sinners). 
  12:35 of the heart is omitted. 
  12:47 verse is omitted (about Christs mother). 
  13:51 Jesus said unto them, and Lord are omitted. 
  15:8 draweth unto me with their mouth is omitted. 
  16:3 O ye hypocrites is omitted. 
  16:20 Jesus is omitted. 
  17:21 verse is out (about prayer and fasting). 
  18:11 verse is out (telling that Jesus came to save). 
  19:9 last 11 words (about adultery) are omitted. 
  19:17 God is omitted. None good but (God). 
  20:7 whatsoever is right receive is omitted. 
  20:16 many be called but few chosen is omitted. 
  20:22 baptised with Christs baptism is omitted. 
  21:44 verse is omitted (about Christ the stone). 
  23:14 verse is omitted (woe to Scribes and hypocrites). 
  25:13 wherein the Son of Man cometh is omitted. 
  27:35 fulfilled spoken by the prophet is omitted. 
  27:54 the Son of God is changed to a son of God. 
  28:2 from the door is omitted. 
  28:9 they went to tell his disciples is omitted. 
Mark

  1:1 Son of God omitted in Nestle, New World, Wescott and Hort, and others. 

  1:14 of the kingdom is omitted (concerning Jesus gospel). 
  1:31 immediately is omitted (about Christs miracle). 
  2:17 to repentance is omitted. 
  6:11 more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah is omitted. 
  6:16 from the dead is omitted. 
  6:33 him is changed to them. 
  7:8 washing of pots and cups is omitted. 
  7:16 verse is omitted (about having an ear to hear). 
  9:24 Lord is omitted. (A believer called Jesus Lord). 
  9:42 verse is omitted (about Hell). 
  9:46 verse is omitted (about Hell). 
  9:49 every sacrifice shall be salted is omitted. 
  10:21 take up the cross is omitted. 
  10:24 for them that trust in riches is omitted. 
  11:10 in the name of the Lord is omitted. 
  11:26 verse is omitted (about forgiveness). 
  13:14 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is omitted. 
  13:33 and pray is omitted, or in italics. 
  14:68 and the cock crew is omitted. 
  15:28 verse is omitted (about Scripture being fulfilled). 
  15:39 the Son of God is changed to a son of God. 
  16:9-20 whole 12 verses are omitted in some Bibles or put in parenthesis. 
  
Luke

  1:28 blessed are thou among women is omitted. 
  2:33 Joseph is changed to father. 
  2:43 Joseph and his mother is changed to parents. 
  4:4 but by every word of God is omitted. 
  4:8 get thee behind me Satan is omitted. 
  4:41 the Christ is omitted (about the Son of God being Christ). 
  6:48 founded upon a rock is changed to well-built. 
  7:31 and the Lord said is omitted. 
  9:54 even as Elijah did is omitted. 
  9:55 ye know not what manner of spirit is omitted. 
  9:56 son of man is come to save lives is omitted. 
  11:2-4 much is omitted from the Lords prayer. 
  11:29 the prophet is out (about Jonah). 
  17:36 verse is omitted (one taken, another left). 
  21:4 cast in unto the offerings of God is omitted. 
  22:20 verse is out in NEB and RSV. 
  22:31 and the Lord said is omitted. 
  22:64 they struck him on the face is omitted. 
  23:17 whole verse is omitted in many modern versions. 
  23:38 letters of Greek, Latin, Hebrew is omitted. 
  23:42 Lord is omitted (the thief addressing Jesus). 
  23:45 sun was eclipsed in Moffatt and NEB. 
  24:3 of the Lord Jesus is omitted. 
  24:6 He is not here, but is risen is omitted. 
  24:12 verse is omitted (Peters testimony). 
  24:40 verse is omitted (Christ showing them hands and feet). 
  24:49 of Jerusalem is omitted. 
  24:51 carried up into heaven is omitted. 
John

  1:14 begotten is out in 1:18; 3:16; 3:18. 
  1:27 preferred before me is omitted (about Jesus). 
  3:13 which is in heaven is omitted. 
  3:15 should not perish is omitted. 
  4:42 the Christ is omitted. 
  5:3 waiting for the moving of the water is omitted. 
  5:4 whole verse omitted. 
  6:47 on

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: 

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?

-- 
~~~
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: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/21/2005 10:03:53 PM 
Subject: 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. 

:-)
cd: Are you lying JD? You did make those statements of Rabbis being Mormons.-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 izzy

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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version



No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone 
care to explain my MEANING to Judy?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 06:28
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  
  Interesting answer Lance,
  So what are you saying? Should God's Word be 
  dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?
  
  On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali 
(Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help 
construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to 
translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some 
years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our 
store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their 
culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories 
exist all over the globe?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 21, 2005 16:32
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  
  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 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, 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 2:08:22 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons

Are you stating that you prophet is wrong?DAVEH: Not necessarily. I'm saying that they are falliblewhich means that the are capable of being wrong. So Deanyes, you are wrong.
cd: To be fair if they may be wrong -couldn't I maybe be right? The question was do you have to repeat a chant in school that the "prophet is always right"?Dean Moore wrote: 

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"?

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know




CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' 
(SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably 
low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in 
part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, 
Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor 
and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and 
theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry 
ground.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  Moore 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  
  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dave Hansen 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  
Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand 
your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, 
Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I 
explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to 
denigrate that which I hold sacred.

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light 
Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh 
to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that 
doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that 
they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under 
Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are 
you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your 
temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore 
wrote: 

  
  cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and 
  DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are 
  you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you 
  give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you 
  here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about 
  one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon 
  belief-you refuse? Why are you here?
  
  
  -- 
~~~
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] UF update

cd: You are causing no small stir David as Paul said he did-good
company:-) Hang in there.

 [Original Message]
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Date: 11/21/2005 10:12:55 PM
 Subject: [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.

--
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] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version



Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning 
Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you
think they understand any better than I do? You 
keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If 
the
Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get 
him a Little Golden Book and show and tell 

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone 
  care to explain my MEANING to Judy?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Interesting answer Lance,
So what are you saying? Should God's Word be 
dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali 
  (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help 
  construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to 
  translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some 
  years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into 
  our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in 
  their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar 
  stories exist all over the globe?
  
From: Christine Miller 

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 
  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, 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know




Now this is "comedy" time - for sure. JD 
reflecting a combination of exegesis, exposition, and theological 
instinct?
You have just categorized the things you hold most dear 
and JD reflects them when he will not even tell the truth on TT?

For your sake Lance I pray there will come a time 
when you acknowledge and see your need for what 
you criticize about Dean. 
For now it's to be expected because these things are considered foolishness bytheworldly 
minded- better to be entertained 
by SNL than to concern oneself with spiritual deception and lay down one's life for the lost. judyt
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:00:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' 
  (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a 
  remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, 
  at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, 
  Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill 
  Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. 
  exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an 
  otherwise dry ground.
  
From: Dave Hansen 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  
  Dave: inquiring minds want to know
  
  We ask about one of you ceremonies to better 
  understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive 
  me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I 
  explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to 
  denigrate that which I hold sacred.
  
  cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light 
  Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither 
  cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that 
  doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that 
  they are wrought in God.
  We give you all you ask for to be examined under 
  Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What 
  are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in 
  your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean 
  Moore wrote: 
  

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and 
DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are 
you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you 
give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you 
here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask 
about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon 
belief-you refuse? Why are you here?


-- 
~~~
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] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version



Take a wild guess Judy as to the percentage of 
believers, globally, who are reading either the KJV or a KJV based 
translation.My goodness, what is it with you wackos and the KJV (yes, 
DaveH this does include your entire sect)? For all who suffer from 'KJVitis' I'd 
suggest a healthy dose of prayer, humility, critical thinking and, study. (these 
aren't from SATAN are they cd?)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 07:05
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  
  Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning 
  Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you
  think they understand any better than I do? You 
  keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If 
  the
  Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. 
  Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell 
  
  On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone 
care to explain my MEANING to Judy?

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  Interesting answer Lance,
  So what are you saying? Should God's Word 
  be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?
  
  On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali 
(Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help 
construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to 
translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some 
years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into 
our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in 
their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar 
stories exist all over the globe?

  From: Christine Miller 
  
  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 
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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers

Did you ever notice how they dig their heels in to acomplish the original task take everyones view off of the subject at hand.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:He wasn't a translator nor did he work on theNASV project.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:11:27 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'erscd: 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 jandgtaylor1@juno.com 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. 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers

Note that Logsdon said the NASV was a SATANIC Deception! note that he DID work on the project just not as a translator.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:16:35 -0500Subject: 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'ersDean, 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 Logsdon?s 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

2005-11-22 Thread Taylor





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)."

Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that 
could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she 
respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, 
too.

Thanks,

Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

Ezekiel lay on his right side for 390 days, and then on his left sidefor another 40 days. And what were those cakes all about.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Just asking --- who said anything about being drunk? I mean, you guys wave men's underwear around , so why not chew. Whatever. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:51:40 -0500Subject: 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. 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 SPAN class=correction id=""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 - TT'ers

maybe this will help?"That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is what you wrote and this is what I addressed:"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 lt; 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. JdOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:23:59 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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,

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

What is the greek word in the text, that is to BE translated into "BEING" in hebrews 10:14?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:They are not "being perfected." They are being sanctified. I believe that "sactification" is the work of God within the believer -- its finale is expressed [in part] in a visible difference (holiness) between "us" and "them." In this example, we are passively involved to the glory of God. Perfection, in this scripture, is a done deal -- Him dying ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME for us. JD-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:17:39 -0800 (PST)Subject: 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 cd_moore@earthlink.net 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" wmtaylor@plains.net 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
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers

Now it is HIGH TIME to HIGH TAIL it Out A HereDon't worry it won't last he will be back with a vengance.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Move on , Judy. I have. Jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:08:56 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersYou need to come clean JD and admit that you were wrong rather than accuse me over some diversionary minor point. I'm not the FBI. It was your "SILLY RUMOR" claim that I addressed and that was wrong. Be honest and admit it. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:15:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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. JdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]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. 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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Another darn Questionere!

Your being persecuted for TRUTH?Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: That's a curious comment, Izzy. Dean made a false accusation about me, and you seem to want to blame me.! Like I saidyou've taught me a lot.ShieldsFamily wrote: Dean, when will you learn that trying to reason with DaveH is like trying to nail jello to the wall? He just slithers sideways. izHe 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 receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.-- ~~~ 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

2005-11-22 Thread Taylor





hagiazomenous verb participle present passive accusative masculine 
plural [Friberg] 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:52 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  What is the greek word in the text, that is to BE 
  translated into "BEING" in hebrews 10:14?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


They are not "being perfected." They are being 
sanctified. I believe that "sactification" is the work of God within the believer 
-- its finale is expressed [in 
part] in a visible difference (holiness) between "us" and 
"them." In this example, we are passively involved to the glory 
of God. Perfection, in this 
scripture, is a done deal -- Him dying ONCE AND FOR ALL 
TIME for us. 

JD-Original 
Message-From: Kevin Deegan 
openairmission@yahoo.comTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:17:39 -0800 
(PST)Subject: 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 cd_moore@earthlink.net 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/revisor



On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net 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)

__Do You 
Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
  
  
  Yahoo!

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers

Watch this "Move on , Judy. I have." Jd[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 136 v 81 :-)-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:35:00 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersIn your dreams JD - Reality says you are the same old obdurant JD who will not take responsibility for what you write that you've always been. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:23:55 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Move on , Judy. I have. JdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]You need to come clean JD and admit that you were wrong rather than accuse me over some diversionary minor point. I'm not the FBI. It was your "SILLY RUMOR" claim that I addressed and that was wrong. Be honest and admit it. judytOn Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:15:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: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. JdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]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. 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

Re: [TruthTalk] A Better Translation?

Look at all those OMISSIONS I wonder if the Omitted words were important to God?Prov 30:5 Every Word of God is pureJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A better translation? - Logsdons story S. Frank Logsdon (1907-1987), a respected evangelical pastor and conference speaker, gives us his testimony about his well-meaning but mistaken attempt to relegate the Authorized Version of the Bible
to oblivion by producing a new translation. He tells his own story how it came about that from serving as a committee member for the production of the New American Standard Bible, he was constrained, by force of evidence and good conscience, to re-trace his steps back to the King James Version. His involvement with the said project came about from an invitation by Franklin Dewey Lockman who, according to his opinion, wasnt schooled in language or anything; he was just a businessman; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right (that is, the NASB). Upon reflection and by hindsight, Logsdon reasons that the devil is too wise to try to destroy the Bible. He knows he cant. He cant destroy the Word of God. But he can do a lot of things to try to supplant it, or to corrupt it in the minds and hearts of Gods people. A better translation?
He says how foolish it is for modern versions, among them the NASB, to pose as better translations than the AV. To give this impression, whenever there was an omission of words or phrases or even whole sentences in the NASB, the editors would put in a footnote: Not in the oldest manuscripts. But they do not tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. Or they say, Not in the best manuscripts. What are the best manuscripts. They dont tell you. By this subtle ploy, the average reader notices the note in the margin and he takes it for granted that the scholars know better than he. Who is he to protest? Who is he to raise his voice against the scholars. That would be the height of impertinence and foolhardiness. But when the popular phrases, the best manuscripts, and the oldest manuscripts are thrown about here and there - to intimidate the inquirers - what is meant by them is quite surprising. By such phrases is usually meant the Codices A and B, that is, the
Sinai and Vatican manuscripts. Where do we find these two revered manuscripts? Of all places, in the custodial care of Rome!! Virtually all of our revisions, of recent years in particular, that claim to be superior to the AV, come through that stream. Whats more, nobody has seen the Vatican manuscript. Its under lock and key in Rome. And the only copies we have are the copies Rome decided to give to the outside world. What should our Protestant reaction be? Well, if we happen to be true Protestants, we wouldnt trust them one bit. The guardian of these manuscripts is notorious for her apostasy and denial of New Testament Christianity. Why should we consult her manuscripts when the vast majority of ancient manuscripts are in agreement with each other, and so vastly different from the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts. And yet, wonder of wonders, the United Bible Society and other smaller Bible translation societies, opted for the eclectic text as
corrupted by these two manuscripts in particular. (The Trinitarian Bible Society of London is one noble exception). Pauls Bible, my Bible Quoting Logsdon again: I tell you, I used to laugh with others when a person would try to slander the intelligence, perhaps, of some who say, Well, if the Authorized Version was good enough for Paul its good enough for me. You get a lot of ha, has. Say, that perhaps is true. If this is the Word of God, and Paul had the Word of God, then things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. We have the Book that Paul had! (my italics). The reasoning is such: Paul had the pure Word of God (in a different language from mine). I have the pure Word of God (in the Authorized, since Im much deficient in Greek and Hebrew). Therefore Paul and I own the same Word of God. But by the same reasoning, the reader of the NASB cannot say this. The hundreds of omissions in his Bible are the result of
corrupted texts introduced and disseminated by the Gnostics and heretical teachers of the early church (Origen, Marcion, Eusebius, and so on). These omissions were done after the death of the apostle Paul. So the NASB reader and the apostle Paul do not read the same Bible. Archaisms, archaisms, archaisms... The impression is given that the AV is loaded down with Elizabethan English that is outdated and foreign to todays readership. It is a Bible that belongs to the past. Its incumbent upon us then to update the Bible and present our faith to a modern culture in a more effective way, making a definite impact that could not be made with the AV. Logsdon continues: Its true there could be, and perhaps should be, some few corrections of words that are archaic.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Suppose it wassecretly Satan that is worshipped. Would you expect to be told so?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to
knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you
Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor





Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit 
has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive 
verbs..
Are we in the last days with apostasy and 
falling away or what?? judyt

Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that 
could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? 

If she respects you, she may listen. The same 
goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too. Thanks, Bill

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:52:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  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] Emailing: NIV.htm

Don't teach them about Bread Change God's word Maybe banana chips would be a good Translation for BreadJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance, So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?From: Christine Miller 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




Yes Virginia, there really are languages other than 
English.

Thesis:The implosion of the West (including USA). The 
ascendency of the two most populous nations on earth; China and India. (See Ted 
Fisman's 'China Inc.:How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and 
the World' 2005 (It is a good read/listen)

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Taylor 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 07:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  
  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)."
  
  Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that 
  could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she 
  respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your 
  help, too.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

FYI it was sweet potatoe .- Original 
Message - 

  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: November 22, 2005 08:17
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm

  Don't teach them about Bread
  Change God's word
  Maybe banana chips would be a good Translation for 
  BreadJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

Could you for once deign to explain your own 
meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you
think they understand any better than I do? 
You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If 
the
Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. 
Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell 

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! 
  Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?

From: Judy 
Taylor 

Interesting answer Lance,
So what are you saying? Should God's Word 
be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  A friend, John Wilson, worked with the 
  Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to 
  help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on 
  to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, 
  some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, 
  came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such 
  things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How 
  many similar stories exist all over the globe?

From: Christine Miller 

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 
  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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




So what has all this got to do with the ministry of the 
Holy Spirit. God can save by few or by many and what is too hard for 
Him?
Believe it or not the Holy Spirit is bilingual 
also.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:25:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Yes Virginia, there really are languages other than 
  English.
  
  Thesis:The implosion of the West (including USA). The 
  ascendency of the two most populous nations on earth; China and India. (See 
  Ted Fisman's 'China Inc.:How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges 
  America and the World' 2005 (It is a good read/listen)
  
From: Taylor 
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)."

Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that 
could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If 
she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs 
your help, too.

Thanks,

Bill
   
judyt 
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments 
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

2005-11-22 Thread Christine Miller

You mean you want me to consider all of the Chinese people reading a bible that is not the KJV? You reject the KJV because of the Spanish translations and the Dutch translations and the Korean translations? I was asking about the version specifically. The only complaint I have ever heard against the KJV was about its old English. If that's the only obstacle, why should I not feel that it is the best translation?Another aspect to the KJV is that it trains the reader to truly study. I don't feel that further study is required to understand the word, but it doesn't translate it for you, like the NIV, or cut stuff out. It also helps you to remember that there is a cultural gap between myself and those about whom I am reading. If instead of Paul's "Greetings to the saints" we get "Shout out to my homies," (Hey Pete! That one was for you,) I could come to forget that I am reading about a
different culture. I have seen Christians forget about the cultural gaps, and become frusterated because it just doesn't seem to make perfect sense. Or it just doesn't come alive for them because they don't see the big deal about circumcision, forgetting about the huge culture clashes of that time.Again: the Holy Spirit is required for a lot of this understanding, but the KJV really seems superior to the other translations. I would like to understand the other side of this, however, because I am having a little difficulty empathizing. :-) Blessings!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christine:For your consideration:Think globally.
Consider every believer and, the 'translation' from which they are reading. How many are reading the KJV. What are the implications? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 17:59Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmIf 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 TranslationBefore 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

Fw: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

2005-11-22 Thread Taylor




If you would like a short lesson on how verbs work 
in the Greek, just ask. I'm sure DavidM would be glad to accommodate you. I 
would too, but it would probably mean more coming from him.

Bill
- Original Message - 
From: Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor


hagiazomenous verb participle present passive accusative masculine 
plural [Friberg] 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:52 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  What is the greek word in the text, that is to BE 
  translated into "BEING" in hebrews 10:14?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


They are not "being perfected." They are being 
sanctified. I believe that "sactification" is the work of God within the believer 
-- its finale is expressed [in 
part] in a visible difference (holiness) between "us" and 
"them." In this example, we are passively involved to the glory 
of God. Perfection, in this 
scripture, is a done deal -- Him dying ONCE AND FOR ALL 
TIME for us. 

JD-Original 
Message-From: Kevin Deegan 
openairmission@yahoo.comTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:17:39 -0800 
(PST)Subject: 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 cd_moore@earthlink.net 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/revisor



On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

2005-11-22 Thread Christine Miller

Title: Evaluating the New International Version
Judy, I think Lance is meaning to say that no culture is better than any other culture, and that includes their bible translations. Please be more accepting to the pagan cultures and their bible translations. :-)Was that it, Lance? Cultural relativism applied to bible translations?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 06:28Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmInteresting answer Lance,So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe? - Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 16:32Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmThanks 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

Re: [TruthTalk] UF update

cd wrote:
 You are causing no small stir David as Paul
 said he did-good company:-) Hang in there.

Thanks for the encouragement, Dean.  I was hoping to meet you in Atlanta 
last weekend.  I stayed with Dick Christensen Friday night and spent 
Saturday morning with a dozen other street preachers.  Some of them I had 
known from years past.  Others were new guys on the circuit.  Unfortunately, 
my stay was short because my responsibilities in my local congregation on 
Sunday necessitated me leaving Saturday afternoon.

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] Emailing: NIV.htm

2005-11-22 Thread Christine Miller

Title: Evaluating the New International Version
Lance, I think you are forgetting that Judy and I have represented ourselves as somewhat moderate on the KJV issue. We are simply asking about your personal rejection of the KJV. I appreciate your exhortion to prayer and humility, critical thinking, and study, and I accept it. It's noble advice. But we are only speaking about personal matters, not about how we should burn any and all other translations.We are only asking: what are your personal qualms with the version? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a wild guess Judy as to the percentage of
believers, globally, who are reading either the KJV or a KJV based translation.My goodness, what is it with you wackos and the KJV (yes, DaveH this does include your entire sect)? For all who suffer from 'KJVitis' I'd suggest a healthy dose of prayer, humility, critical thinking and, study. (these aren't from SATAN are they cd?) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 07:05Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmCould you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes youthink they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If theYali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy? From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance,So what are you saying? Should God's
Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the
globe? From: Christine Miller 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version



Nice try but, no cigar Christine. It is just 
possible that semantic dysfunctionality runs in the household. (It is an ongoing 
problem with your Dad. He's always had the same problem as Judy. i.e. 
distinguishing between syntax and semantics) 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 08:42
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  
  Judy, I think Lance is meaning to say that no culture is 
  better than any other culture, and that includes their bible translations. 
  Please be more accepting to the pagan cultures and their bible translations. 
  :-)Was that it, Lance? Cultural relativism applied to bible 
  translations?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone 
care to explain my MEANING to Judy?

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  November 22, 2005 06:28
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
  
  Interesting answer Lance,
  So what are you saying? Should God's Word 
  be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?
  
  On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali 
(Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help 
construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to 
translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some 
years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into 
our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in 
their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar 
stories exist all over the globe?

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine Miller 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  November 21, 2005 16:32
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
  
  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 
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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm




Should you wish it then, I'll put you directly in 
touch with the one who worked on the 'Yali translation'. You could contact 
Wycliffe Bible Translators or, any similarly 'empathetic' organization making 
God's Word available, in a non KJV translation, all 'round the 
globe.

SUCH AS THIS MIGHT HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THIS, IFF YOU ARE TRULY SERIOUS

f- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 08:38
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  
  You mean you want me to consider all of the Chinese people 
  reading a bible that is not the KJV? You reject the KJV because of the Spanish 
  translations and the Dutch translations and the Korean translations? I 
  was asking about the version specifically. The only complaint I have ever 
  heard against the KJV was about its old English. If that's the only obstacle, 
  why should I not feel that it is the best translation?Another aspect 
  to the KJV is that it trains the reader to truly study. I don't feel that 
  further study is required to understand the word, but it doesn't translate it 
  for you, like the NIV, or cut stuff 
  out. It also helps you to remember that there is a cultural gap between myself 
  and those about whom I am reading. If instead of Paul's "Greetings to the 
  saints" we get "Shout out to my homies," (Hey Pete! That one was for you,) I 
  could come to forget that I am reading about a different culture. I have seen 
  Christians forget about the cultural gaps, and become frusterated because it 
  just doesn't seem to make perfect sense. Or it just doesn't come alive for 
  them because they don't see the big deal about circumcision, forgetting about 
  the huge culture clashes of that time.Again: the Holy Spirit is 
  required for a lot of this understanding, but the KJV really seems superior to 
  the other translations. I would like to understand the other side of this, 
  however, because I am having a little difficulty empathizing. 
  :-)Blessings!Lance Muir 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Christine:For your consideration:Think 
globally. Consider every believer and, the 'translation' from which they are 
reading. How many are reading the KJV. What are the 
implications?

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  November 21, 2005 17:59
  Subject: 
  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 
  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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version



OK then. I grew up on it. I read it. I enjoy it. 
I've memorized great gobs of it. I sell it in our store. My first gift to my 
wife was a KJV Thomson Chain Reference Bible (she still reads it). Does that 
help?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 08:49
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  
  Lance, I think you are forgetting that Judy and I have 
  represented ourselves as somewhat moderate on the KJV issue. We are simply 
  asking about your personal rejection 
  of the KJV. I appreciate your exhortion to prayer and humility, critical 
  thinking, and study, and I accept it. It's noble advice. But we are only 
  speaking about personal matters, not about how we should burn any and all 
  other translations.We are only asking: what are your personal qualms with the 
  version? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Take a wild guess Judy as to the percentage of 
believers, globally, who are reading either the KJV or a KJV based 
translation.My goodness, what is it with you wackos and the KJV (yes, 
DaveH this does include your entire sect)? For all who suffer from 'KJVitis' 
I'd suggest a healthy dose of prayer, humility, critical thinking and, 
study. (these aren't from SATAN are they cd?)

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  November 22, 2005 07:05
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
  
  Could you for once deign to explain your own 
  meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes 
you
  think they understand any better than I do? 
  You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If 
  the
  Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, 
  etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell 

  
  On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! 
Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?

  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  
  Interesting answer Lance,
  So what are you saying? Should God's 
  Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic 
  cultures?
  
  On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
A friend, John Wilson, worked with the 
Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to 
help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went 
on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in 
February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the 
manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as 
they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This 
was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the 
globe?

  From: 
  Christine Miller 
  
  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 
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Another baseless Accusation...


You assume these are the words of Christ. The translators are not deleting the words of Christ. They are translating a family of documents. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:40:45 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Another baseless Accusation...






Could it be that California rarified air? You need to own your own error JD and do the right thing by taking responsibility. You wrote:
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


Butchered by the critics? penknife  Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, in foot-notes and translations, have changed and mutilated the Greek text in about six thousand places. This is why we have so many omissions in our modern Bibles. Words omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics are counted as not authentic according to brain-washed modern scholarship. With a red pencil mark all these omissions which occur in your Bible and prepare yourself for a big surprise.
Matthew

1:25 firstborn is omitted. 
5:44 bless them that curse you is omitted. 
6:13: kingdom, power, glory is omitted. 
6:27 stature is changed. 
6:33 of God is omitted. 
8:29 Jesus is omitted (as Son of God). 
9:13 to repentance is omitted (in calling sinners). 
12:35 of the heart is omitted. 
12:47 verse is omitted (about Christ?s mother). 
13:51 Jesus said unto them, and Lord are omitted. 
15:8 draweth unto me with their mouth is omitted. 
16:3 O ye hypocrites is omitted. 
16:20 Jesus is omitted. 
17:21 verse is out (about prayer and fasting). 
18:11 verse is out (telling that Jesus came to save). 
19:9 last 11 words (about adultery) are omitted. 
19:17 God is omitted. None good but (God). 
20:7 whatsoever is right receive is omitted. 
20:16 many be called but few chosen is omitted. 
20:22 baptised with Christ?s baptism is omitted. 
21:44 verse is omitted (about Christ the stone). 
23:14 verse is omitted (woe to Scribes and hypocrites). 
25:13 wherein the Son of Man cometh is omitted. 
27:35 fulfilled spoken by the prophet is omitted. 
27:54 the Son of God is changed to a son of God. 
28:2 from the door is omitted. 
28:9 they went to tell his disciples is omitted. 
Mark

1:1 Son of God omitted in Nestle, New World, Wescott and Hort, and others. 
1:14 of the kingdom is omitted (concerning Jesus? gospel). 
1:31 immediately is omitted (about Christ?s miracle). 
2:17 to repentance is omitted. 
6:11 more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah is omitted. 
6:16 from the dead is omitted. 
6:33 him is changed to them. 
7:8 washing of pots and cups is omitted. 
7:16 verse is omitted (about having an ear to hear). 
9:24 Lord is omitted. (A believer called Jesus Lord). 
9:42 verse is omitted (about Hell). 
9:46 verse is omitted (about Hell). 
9:49 every sacrifice shall be salted is omitted. 
10:21 take up the cross is omitted. 
10:24 for them that trust in riches is omitted. 
11:10 in the name of the Lord is omitted. 
11:26 verse is omitted (about forgiveness). 
13:14 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is omitted. 
13:33 and pray is omitted, or in italics. 
14:68 and the cock crew is omitted. 
15:28 verse is omitted (about Scripture being fulfilled). 
15:39 the Son of God is changed to a son of God. 
16:9-20 whole 12 verses are omitted in some Bibles or put in parenthesis. 
Luke

1:28 blessed are thou among women is omitted. 
2:33 Joseph is changed to father. 
2:43 Joseph and his mother is changed to parents. 
4:4 but by every word of God is omitted. 
4:8 get thee behind me Satan is omitted. 
4:41 the Christ is omitted (about the Son of God being Christ). 
6:48 founded upon a rock is changed to well-built. 
7:31 and the Lord said is omitted. 
9:54 even as Elijah did is omitted. 
9:55 ye know not what manner of spirit is omitted. 
9:56 son of man is come to save lives is omitted. 
11:2-4 much is omitted from the Lord?s prayer. 
11:29 the prophet is out (about Jonah). 
17:36 verse is omitted (one taken, another left). 
21:4 cast in unto the offerings of God is omitted. 
22:20 verse is out in NEB and RSV. 
22:31 and the Lord said is omitted. 
22:64 they struck him on the face is omitted. 
23:17 whole verse is omitted in many modern versions. 
23:38 letters of Greek, Latin, Hebrew is omitted. 
23:42 Lord is omitted (the thief addressing Jesus). 
23:45 sun was eclipsed in Moffatt and NEB. 
24:3 of the Lord Jesus is omitted. 
24:6 He is not here, but is risen is omitted. 
24:12 verse is omitted (Peter?s testimony). 
24:40 verse is omitted (Christ showing them hands and feet). 
24:49 of Jerusalem is omitted. 
24:51 carried up into heaven is omitted. 
John

1:14 begotten is out in 1:18; 3:16; 3:18. 
1:27 preferred before me is omitted (about Jesus). 
3:13 which is in heaven is omitted. 
3:15 should not

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

2005-11-22 Thread Terry Clifton





Those rare treats are much like water...all wet!
Terry



Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church
lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and,
demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I
acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement
provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David
(Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John
Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and
theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise
dry ground.

Re: [TruthTalk] Dear Mormons





cd: To be fair if they may be wrong
-couldn't I maybe be right? 

DAVEH: You stated...

Remember Dave "The prophet is
always right"?

...With that statement Dean, you were clearly wrong.

  
  
  
  
  
  
Are you stating that you
prophet is wrong?

DAVEH: Not necessarily. I'm saying that they are falliblewhich
means that the are capable of being wrong. So Deanyes, you are wrong.
cd: To be fair if they may be
wrong -couldn't I maybe be right? The question
was do you have to repeat a chant in school that the "prophet is always
right"?

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  


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

Tell it to your Babptist KJV - only pals --- they are the ones who wrote this: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. 



-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:38:06 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers



Note that Logsdon said the NASV was a SATANIC Deception!
note that he DID work on the project just not as a translator.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:16:35 -0500Subject: 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 Logsdon?s 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!





DAVEH: Note to John.You are going to have a hard time defending
yourself against such accusations. Some TTers apparently enjoy making
wild and false claims repeatedly, and refuse to back them up with
direct quotes of evidence. For you to prove a negative is impossible,
so eventually it will be believed that you said something you didn't.
Welcome to the truth as found in TT, Bishop!


  
  You have me confused with someone else. Might ask Lance or
maybe Dean -- whoever but not me. 
  



:-)
cd: Are you lying JD? You did make those
statements of Rabbis being Mormons.



  


-- 
~~~
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] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know





We give you all you ask for to be examined
under Satan microscope. 

DAVEH: Therein lies the problem, Dean. I have no desire
to be examined under Satan microscope, which is
why I don't respond to such questions as yours and other anti-Mormons.

  

DAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere
about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you
will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.
We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your
Mormon belief

cd: What are you afraid to bring into
the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the
light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be
manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be
examined under Satan microscope. All we get is
half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you
chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is
Satan invoked in you Temple?

Dean Moore wrote: 

  
  cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof
for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing
but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't
regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the
dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we
ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand
your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?
  
  

  

-- 
~~~
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!





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 

DAVEH: No.I don't quite remember it that way, Dean. All I am
asking you to do is provide a specific quote of mine that says I do not
believe in hell. If you can't do that, then it seems to me that you
would owe me an apology. Am I wrong?

Dean Moore 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.

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] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin





DAVEH: Sounds like you are now guessing, Izzy. Interestingly,
listening to you persuades me to remain in my religion.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  


  
  
  
  If you were
listening to the Holy Spirit
you would not persist in your cult religion. iz
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  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] corrector/revisor - TT'ers



This is exactly why I do not accept anything that Kevin says as authoritative. When you rip a person's comments out of context, you can pretty much make a case for anything  and you have done just that. 



-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:50:36 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers



maybe this will help?

"That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor.

Re: [TruthTalk] Another baseless Accusation...

Nothing new under the sun.Logsdon himself said: Any earnest inquirer can check out these things for himself. He will be surprised how much mud-throwing has been done by those who want to sell there modern cheap wares.http://www.tecmalta.org/tft122.htmJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Could it be that California
rarified air? You need to own your own error JD and do the right thing by taking responsibility. You wrote: 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.JdButchered by the critics penknife Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, in foot-notes and translations, have changed and mutilated the Greek text in about six thousand places. This is why we have so many omissions in our modern Bibles. Words omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics are counted as not authentic according to brain-washed modern scholarship. With a red pencil mark all these omissions which occur in your Bible and prepare yourself for a big surprise.
Matthew1:25 firstborn is omitted. 5:44 bless them that curse you is omitted. 6:13: kingdom, power, glory is omitted. 6:27 stature is changed. 6:33 of God is omitted. 8:29 Jesus is omitted (as Son of God). 9:13 to repentance is omitted (in calling sinners). 12:35 of the heart is omitted. 12:47 verse is omitted (about Christs mother). 13:51 Jesus said unto them, and Lord are omitted. 15:8 draweth unto me with their mouth is omitted. 16:3 O ye hypocrites is omitted. 16:20 Jesus is omitted. 17:21 verse is out (about prayer and fasting). 18:11 verse is out (telling that Jesus came to save). 19:9 last 11 words (about adultery) are omitted. 19:17 God is omitted. None good but (God). 20:7 whatsoever is right receive is omitted. 20:16 many be called but few chosen is omitted. 20:22 baptised with Christs baptism is omitted. 21:44 verse is
omitted (about Christ the stone). 23:14 verse is omitted (woe to Scribes and hypocrites). 25:13 wherein the Son of Man cometh is omitted. 27:35 fulfilled spoken by the prophet is omitted. 27:54 the Son of God is changed to a son of God. 28:2 from the door is omitted. 28:9 they went to tell his disciples is omitted. Mark1:1 Son of God omitted in Nestle, New World, Wescott and Hort, and others. 1:14 of the kingdom is omitted (concerning Jesus gospel). 1:31 immediately is omitted (about Christs miracle). 2:17 to repentance is omitted. 6:11 more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah is omitted. 6:16 from the dead is omitted. 6:33 him is changed to them. 7:8 washing of pots and cups is omitted. 7:16 verse is omitted (about having an ear to hear). 9:24 Lord is omitted. (A believer called Jesus Lord). 9:42 verse is omitted (about Hell). 9:46 verse is
omitted (about Hell). 9:49 every sacrifice shall be salted is omitted. 10:21 take up the cross is omitted. 10:24 for them that trust in riches is omitted. 11:10 in the name of the Lord is omitted. 11:26 verse is omitted (about forgiveness). 13:14 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is omitted. 13:33 and pray is omitted, or in italics. 14:68 and the cock crew is omitted. 15:28 verse is omitted (about Scripture being fulfilled). 15:39 the Son of God is changed to a son of God. 16:9-20 whole 12 verses are omitted in some Bibles or put in parenthesis. Luke1:28 blessed are thou among women is omitted. 2:33 Joseph is changed to father. 2:43 Joseph and his mother is changed to parents. 4:4 but by every word of God is omitted. 4:8 get thee behind me Satan is omitted. 4:41 the Christ is omitted (about the Son of God being Christ). 6:48 founded upon a
rock is changed to well-built. 7:31 and the Lord said is omitted. 9:54 even as Elijah did is omitted. 9:55 ye know not what manner of spirit is omitted. 9:56 son of man is come to save lives is omitted. 11:2-4 much is omitted from the Lords prayer. 11:29 the prophet is out (about Jonah). 17:36 verse is omitted (one taken, another left). 21:4 cast in unto the offerings of God is omitted. 22:20 verse is out in NEB and RSV. 22:31 and the Lord said is omitted. 22:64 they struck him on the face is omitted. 23:17 whole verse is omitted in many modern versions. 23:38 letters of Greek, Latin, Hebrew is omitted. 23:42 Lord is omitted (the thief addressing Jesus). 23:45 sun was eclipsed in Moffatt and NEB. 24:3 of the Lord Jesus is omitted. 24:6 He is not here, but is risen is omitted. 24:12 verse is omitted (Peters testimony). 24:40 verse is omitted (Christ showing them hands
and feet). 24:49 of Jerusalem is omitted. 24:51 carried up into heaven is omitted. John1:14 begotten is out in 1:18; 3:16; 3:18. 1:27 preferred before me is omitted

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm


You forgot "and be sure to cut and run when the opposition asks us question that we cannot answer without admitting problems with our point of view." -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:17:49 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm



Don't teach them about Bread
Change God's word
Maybe banana chips would be a good Translation for BreadJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you
think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the
Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell 

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?

From: Judy Taylor 

Interesting answer Lance,
So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?

From: Christine Miller 

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 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

2005-11-22 Thread Terry Clifton





Lance Muir wrote:

  Evaluating the New International Version
  
  
  Nice try but, no cigar Christine. It
is just possible that semantic dysfunctionality runs in the household.
(It is an ongoing problem with your Dad. He's always had the same
problem as Judy. i.e. distinguishing between syntax and semantics) 

-
Some people go out and do. Some people stay home and read. The former
know from experience. The latter know because someone said so.

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (Just a Ruse to enable the fox into the henhouse. Once inside they will gut the place. Notice all the missing words in the new versions Notice Whole missing verses Notice the whole ending of Mark 16 Missing Notice inserted words changing the meaning with no textual support. Wescott Hort used the same RUSE of fixing some minor errors and SECRETLYreplaced the WHOLE Underlying text!I bet you fall for those emails that say: There has been a problem with your acount Please send your account handle password so we can rectify itLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?- Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 16:32 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmThanks 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

The new versions do not just UPDATE the language they use a DIFFERENT underLYING Greek Text. As you have seen with your own eyes it is a CORRUPT GROSSLY DISFIGURED!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance, So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?From: Christine Miller 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

Sorry Judy, Lance isBUSY watching TVJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now this is "comedy" time - for sure. JD reflecting a combination of exegesis, exposition, and theological instinct? You have just categorized the things you hold most dear and JD reflects them when he will not even tell the truth on TT?For your sake Lance I pray there will come a time when you acknowledge and see your need for what you criticize about Dean. For now it's to be expected because these things are considered
foolishness bytheworldly minded- better to be entertained by SNL than to concern oneself with spiritual deception and lay down one's life for the lost. judyt On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:00:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination
of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH:
Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote:
cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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)
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

maybe you Three should start a Church yourselves. Trinity UNbelievers ChapelLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.- Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to knowWe ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God. We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your
Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here? -- ~~~ 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!



Thanks for the words. My hat is off to your abilityto remain civil.

What could we name this "club" of which we are hapless members?

Jd 

-Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:47:00 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!


DAVEH: Note to John.You are going to have a hard time defending yourself against such accusations. Some TTers apparently enjoy making wild and false claims repeatedly, and refuse to back them up with direct quotes of evidence. For you to prove a negative is impossible, so eventually it will be believed that you said something you didn't. Welcome to the truth as found in TT, Bishop!

You have me confused with someone else. Might ask Lance or maybe Dean -- whoever but not me. 




:-)
cd: Are you lying JD? You did make those statements of Rabbis being Mormons.-- 
~~~
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] Emailing: NIV.htm

More Mud slinging and LESS objective REASON for Rejecting the KJV I guess Lance is saying if a bunch a WhakO's like you use it I'll avaoid it.Seems like a level headed REASONED Response to me. What a scholarly presentation too!By the way did I miss your CRITICal thinking in your post?Moral superiority makes one loose touch, EH lance?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a wild guess Judy as to the percentage of believers, globally, who are reading either the KJV or a KJV based translation.My goodness, what is it with you wackos and the KJV (yes, DaveH this does include your entire sect)? For all who suffer from 'KJVitis' I'd
suggest a healthy dose of prayer, humility, critical thinking and, study. (these aren't from SATAN are they cd?)- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 07:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance, So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into
our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?From: Christine Miller 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm




I grant you that Terry. However 
misguidedhe is brandishing his hate-filled signs, one must 
acknowledge that he is out there doing/saying something.I see it as 
akin to restocking a lake full of pyranha with fresh fish.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: November 22, 2005 09:58
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: 
  NIV.htm
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  

Nice try but, no cigar Christine. It is just 
possible that semantic dysfunctionality runs in the household. (It is an 
ongoing problem with your Dad. He's always had the same problem as Judy. 
i.e. distinguishing between syntax and semantics) 
  -Some 
  people go out and do. Some people stay home and read. The former 
  know from experience. The latter know because someone said 
so.

Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!





What could we name this "club" of which we are hapless members?

DAVEH: Christian

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  Thanks for the words. My hat is off to your abilityto
remain civil.
  
  What could we name this "club" of which we are hapless
members?
  
  Jd 
  
  
  
  DAVEH: Note to John.You are going
to have a hard time defending yourself against such accusations. Some
  TTers apparently enjoy making
wild and false claims repeatedly, and refuse to back them up with
direct quotes of evidence. For you to prove a negative is impossible,
so eventually it will be believed that you said something you didn't.
Welcome to the truth as found in TT,
Bishop!
  
  
You have me confused with someone else. Might ask Lance or
maybe Dean -- whoever but not me. 

  
  
  
  :-)
  cd: Are
you lying JD? You did make those
statements of Rabbis being Mormons.
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


-- 
~~~
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

He is talking about the NUance of the greek idiom  Yet the Nuance does not INSERT the whole word "BEING"   The Greek word for "Being" is neither in the Textus Receptus NOR the 27th Corrected Greek of N/A (I checked the 26th also NOT THERE!)  The word as given hagiazo in the text, is in the formof a Present Passive Participle.  When considering it's MOOD, itcan be TRANSLATED sanctifyING or santifiED  The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed to the basic verb form.So they INSERT as the NKJV  NIV do the word BEING which is not in the text to get "being sanified"  As posted earlier even the ASV  Beloved NASV Translate it W/O being as "santifiED"  It is HARDLY a KJV error, if it was MOST other Translations
 commit the same error and so too, most Greek Scholars!It is just someones PREFERENCE that ALIGNS with their THEOLOGY!  JD  Bill insert it since they are in process of becoming Christians.Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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)."Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too.Thanks,Bill  __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Well my point was the word is at it's root Sanctify The mood attaches a ING or ED making it sanctified or sanctifying.The WORD for BEING is NOT in the text, just in someones theology! It has been inserted in a very few of the more corrupt and newest TranslationsAs anyone can see adding BEING changes NOT JUST the MOOD but the whole MEANING! But that is the desired effect, just you are not supposed to know. I bet the RCC translations read this way because that would be desirable for their theology Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:hagiazomenous verb participle present passive
accusative masculine plural [Friberg] - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWhat is the greek word in the text, that is to BE translated into "BEING" in hebrews 10:14?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are not "being perfected." They are being sanctified. I believe that "sactification" is the work of God within the believer -- its finale is expressed [in part] in a visible difference (holiness) between "us" and "them." In this example, we are passively involved to the glory of God. Perfection, in this scripture, is a done deal -- Him dying ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME for us. JD-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:17:39 -0800 (PST)Subject: 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 cd_moore@earthlink.net 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" wmtaylor@plains.net 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 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

I would like to know where you found the word BEING in the text other than the MOOD which is an ENDING not another word.Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you would like a short lesson on how verbs work in the Greek, just ask. I'm sure DavidM would be glad to accommodate you. I would too, but it would probably mean more coming from him.Bill - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor hagiazomenous verb participle present passive accusative masculine plural [Friberg] - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWhat is the greek word in the text, that is to BE translated into "BEING" in hebrews 10:14?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are not "being perfected." They are being sanctified. I believe that "sactification" is the work of God within the believer -- its finale is expressed [in part] in a visible difference (holiness) between "us" and "them." In this example, we are passively involved to the glory of God. Perfection, in this scripture, is a done deal -- Him dying ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME for us. JD-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:17:39 -0800 (PST)Subject: 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 cd_moore@earthlink.net 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" wmtaylor@plains.net 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 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

A Participle can be either a NOUN or a VERB thus it is called a "verbal noun" Passive voice simply means it recieves the actionPresent is similar to the english "present tense" as a fact or reality that occurs in time. The past tense in english mightbe rendered as "historical presents" in the greek think, of it as kind of viewing the action occur. These can be rendered into english as simply Past tense or present tense.All that to get to the bottom of something like this. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already I think it is pretty evident what it means! No Greek needed! Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive verbs.. Are we in the last days with apostasy and falling away or what?? judytIs there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too. Thanks, BillOn Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:52:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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)
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Notice Lances reasoned refutation of Judy below! So this is an example of how the KJV is in error Bill?Context Lance! Judy "what color is your car Lance?" Lance "my favorite TV show is CSI" CuNADIANS are Shure InTELEgent Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes Virginia, there really are languages other than English.Thesis:The implosion of the West (including
USA). The ascendency of the two most populous nations on earth; China and India. (See Ted Fisman's 'China Inc.:How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World' 2005 (It is a good read/listen)- Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 07:52 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor 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)."Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she
respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too.Thanks,Bill
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Baked or MASHED?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI it was sweet potatoe .- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 08:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
Don't teach them about Bread Change God's word Maybe banana chips would be a good Translation for BreadJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance, So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?From: Christine Miller 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

The Holy Spirit is NOT able we must help him, like UZZAH!Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what has all this got to do with the ministry of the Holy Spirit. God can save by few or by many and what is too hard for Him? Believe it or not the Holy Spirit is bilingual also.On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:25:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Yes Virginia, there really are languages other than English.Thesis:The implosion of the West (including USA). The ascendency of the two most populous nations on earth; China and India. (See Ted Fisman's 'China Inc.:How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World' 2005 (It is a good read/listen)From: Taylor 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)."Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too.Thanks,Bill
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] UF update









Well, maybe this was her first clue. J izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christine Miller
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005
10:58 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] UF update







The school newspaper does a poor job telling the story: they did not
even speak to my father, but seemed to quote him quite a bit. One part they
left out was that my father begged the girl to give the sign back before
calling the cops. She responded by running away faster. When he brought up the
police, she responded with something like, Good. I'll call the police. When he did
call the police, she was absolutely shocked to be put in handcuffs. She really
thought she was doing the right thing by stealing my father's sign. This really
goes to show you the moral decay of UF's campus. She couldn't understand that she was stealing, and that
stealing is wrong. 


Blessings!


ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Way to go David :-) iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
 Miller
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:59 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: [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.



--
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.











Yahoo!
FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

LOL : ) That was really funny If instead of Paul's "Greetings to the saints" we get "Shout out to my homies," That is it, a translation for all One for the HOMIES! One for the HOMO's (NIV) One for the Fornicators!Don't wait for the Other side of the story cause all we get is mud slinging and whiningChristine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You mean you want me to consider all of the Chinese people reading a bible that is not the KJV? You reject the KJV because of the Spanish translations and the Dutch translations and the Korean translations? I was asking about the version specifically. The only complaint I have ever heard against the KJV was about its old English.
If that's the only obstacle, why should I not feel that it is the best translation?Another aspect to the KJV is that it trains the reader to truly study. I don't feel that further study is required to understand the word, but it doesn't translate it for you, like the NIV, or cut stuff out. It also helps you to remember that there is a cultural gap between myself and those about whom I am reading. If instead of Paul's "Greetings to the saints" we get "Shout out to my homies," (Hey Pete! That one was for you,) I could come to forget that I am reading about a different culture. I have seen Christians forget about the cultural gaps, and become frusterated because it just doesn't seem to make perfect sense. Or it just doesn't come alive for them because they don't see the big deal about circumcision, forgetting about the huge culture clashes of that time.Again: the Holy Spirit is required for a lot of this understanding, but the KJV
really seems superior to the other translations. I would like to understand the other side of this, however, because I am having a little difficulty empathizing. :-)Blessings!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christine:For your consideration:Think globally. Consider every believer and, the 'translation' from which they are reading. How many are reading the KJV. What are the implications?- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 17:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmIf 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

We are only asking: what are your personal qualms with the version? Let me try to help Lance out. In the spirit of one of his earlier reasoned responses: Anyone care to explainhis MEANING to Christine?Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Lance, I think you are forgetting that Judy and I have represented ourselves as somewhat moderate on the KJV issue. We are simply asking about your personal rejection of the KJV. I appreciate your exhortion to prayer and humility, critical thinking, and study, and I accept it. It's noble advice. But we are only speaking about personal matters, not about how we should burn any and all other
translations.We are only asking: what are your personal qualms with the version? Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a wild guess Judy as to the percentage of believers, globally, who are reading either the KJV or a KJV based translation.My goodness, what is it with you wackos and the KJV (yes, DaveH this does include your entire sect)? For all who suffer from 'KJVitis' I'd suggest a healthy dose of prayer, humility, critical thinking and, study. (these aren't from SATAN are they cd?)- Original Message -
From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 07:05 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm
Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance, So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire
Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?From: Christine Miller 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Evaluating the New International VersionLance wrote:
 For all who suffer from 'KJVitis' I'd suggest a healthy
 dose of prayer, humility, critical thinking and, study.

Hmmm.  I think faith fits in better where you put critical thinking. 
:-)

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




Judy, you are reading an English 
translation of a Greek text. The assumption Bill makes is that the Greek 
text reads closer to the intended meaning of the passage and should be preferred 
to the English rendering. I don't have a problem with this assumption that 
he makes. Do you?

In the Heb. 10:14 passage that Bill 
brings up, the word for sanctified is a derivation of hagiazo (holy / 
sanctified) combined with a definite article. Bringing it over directly 
into English is a little problematic. In Greek, it transliterates as "tous 
hagiazomenous" which is a present passive/middle participle. Literally, it 
might come over as "the ones being sanctified" or "those who are 
sanctified." There are not any other Greek texts conjugating this word 
this waythat I am aware of, so I don't think any of us can be 
toodogmatic about the right way to translate here. Some of this 
comes down to how much you trust the Greek scholars.

In the 1 Cor. 7:14 passage that you 
bring up, while the wording looks similar in English, it is different in 
Greek. There is no definite article, and the word is parsed as 
"hegiasiai."This word here is conjugated as being perfect indicative 
passive. This means the Greek puts more emphasis here on the completeness 
and finality of the action (being sanctified).

So while in the English you see "is 
sanctified" and "are sanctified" as beingsimilar, the Greek actually shows 
a little more difference than this ("hegiasiai" in 1 Cor.7:14versus 
"tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14).

Of course, you can also use a little 
common sense. Are we not all in a state of being sanctified? I know 
you believe that we are. You have said so yourself many times. 


Now all this being said, I also 
disagree that this passage would illustrate an error in the KJV. One might 
rightly argue that "are sanctified" in English is present passive, but one might 
argue that a connotation of present repeating action is lost, and so they might 
favor "are being sanctified" as a better translation. The truth is that 
neither translation fits exactly. Nevertheless, when we read the text, it 
seems to me that we really all agree on what is true, that we are all 
sanctified, and we are all in the process of being sanctified, at the same 
time.

Peace be with you.David 
Miller.


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:10 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  
  Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit 
  has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive 
  verbs..
  Are we in the last days with apostasy and 
  falling away or what?? judyt
  
  Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that 
  could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? 
  
  If she respects you, she may listen. The same 
  goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too. Thanks, Bill
  
  On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:52:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

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] Emailing: NIV.htm

Should you wish it then, I'll put you directly in touch with the one who worked on the 'Yali translation'. Let me try to help Lance out. In the spirit of one of his earlier reasoned responses: Anyone care to explainhis MEANING to Wycliffe?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should you wish it then, I'll put you directly in touch with the one who worked on the 'Yali translation'. You could contact Wycliffe Bible Translators or, any similarly 'empathetic' organization making God's Word available, in a non KJV translation, all 'round the globe.SUCH AS THIS MIGHT HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS, IFF YOU ARE TRULY SERIOUSf- Original Message - From: Christine Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 08:38 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmYou mean you want me to consider all of the Chinese people reading a bible that
is not the KJV? You reject the KJV because of the Spanish translations and the Dutch translations and the Korean translations? I was asking about the version specifically. The only complaint I have ever heard against the KJV was about its old English. If that's the only obstacle, why should I not feel that it is the best translation?Another aspect to the KJV is that it trains the reader to truly study. I don't feel that further study is required to understand the word, but it doesn't translate it for you, like the NIV, or cut stuff out. It also helps you to remember that there is a cultural gap between myself and those about whom I am reading. If instead of Paul's "Greetings to the saints" we get "Shout out to my homies," (Hey Pete! That one was for you,) I could come to forget that I am reading about a different culture. I have seen Christians forget about the cultural gaps, and become frusterated because it just doesn't seem
to make perfect sense. Or it just doesn't come alive for them because they don't see the big deal about circumcision, forgetting about the huge culture clashes of that time.Again: the Holy Spirit is required for a lot of this understanding, but the KJV really seems superior to the other translations. I would like to understand the other side of this, however, because I am having a little difficulty empathizing. :-)Blessings!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christine:For your consideration:Think globally. Consider every believer and, the 'translation' from which they are reading. How many are reading the KJV. What are the implications?- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 21, 2005 17:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmIf 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




Kevin, the KJV inserts the words "THEM THAT ARE" which is not in the text 
as separate words. So what is your point?

In regards to the other modern texts that fall inline with how the 
KJV translators did it... GOOD POINT!

Peace be with you.David Miller.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:29 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  corrector/revisor
  
  He is talking about the NUance of the greek idiom
  Yet the Nuance does not INSERT the whole word "BEING" 
  The Greek word for "Being" is neither in the Textus Receptus NOR the 27th 
  Corrected Greek of N/A (I checked the 26th also NOT THERE!)
  The word as given hagiazo in the text, is in the 
  formof a Present Passive Participle.
  When considering it's MOOD, itcan be TRANSLATED 
  sanctifyING or santifiED
  The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the English 
  participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed to the basic verb 
  form.
  
  So they INSERT as the NKJV  NIV do the word BEING which is not in 
  the text to get "being sanified"
  As posted earlier even the ASV  Beloved NASV Translate it W/O being 
  as "santifiED"
  It is HARDLY a KJV error, if it was MOST other Translations commit the 
  same error and so too, most Greek Scholars!
  
  It is just someones PREFERENCE that ALIGNS with their 
  THEOLOGY!
  JD  Bill insert it since they are in process of becoming 
  Christians.Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  




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)."

Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that 
could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If 
she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs 
your help, too.

Thanks,

Bill
  
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Kevin wrote:
 I would like to know where you found the word
 BEING in the text other than the MOOD which
 is an ENDING not another word.

In Greek, it is much more common to make a single word convey the mood and 
tense and even object, but in English we tend to add more words.  The 
authority to add being is the same authority for adding THEM THAT ARE. 
It is something thought to be communicated by the ending of the Greek text. 
This is why the KJV does not put these words in italics.

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

Sorry wrong again it is from a preaching meeting the quote that is and it exists on tape. Case closed as they say HAH?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tell it to your Babptist KJV - only pals --- they are the ones who wrote this: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. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:38:06 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersNote that Logsdon said the NASV was a SATANIC Deception! note that he DID work on the project just not as a translator.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:16:35 -0500Subject: 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'ersDean, 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 Logsdon?s 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers

I have noticed that you ALWAYS delete all the the text around the quotes when you post these things.To beFAIR you should leave it inline Like I do.  Then it can easily be refered to.  That is of course UNLESS you intend to HIDE the content.  Case Closed Hah?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  This is exactly why I do not accept anything that Kevin says as authoritative. When you rip a person's comments out of context, you can pretty much make a case for anything  and you have done just that. -Original
 Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:50:36 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ersmaybe this will help?"That guy" did not "repent" of anything.Just a silly rumor.  
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor









Lance, what does that have to do with
anything regarding the Word of God? Whether America
and the West remain on top or China
takes over, nations rise and fall, but the Word of God stands unchallenged
forever. We should attempt to keep it as pure as possible in whatever language
it is translated. But you have made a good point; I have no idea how to
translate bread into banana chips. Hopefully the translators do not have a
political agenda that are doing the translating, and have prayed with pure
hearts to be led by the Holy Spirit. izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005
7:25 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor







Yes Virginia,
there really are languages other than English.











Thesis:The implosion of the West (including USA). The
ascendency of the two most populous nations on earth; China and India. (See Ted Fisman's 'China
Inc.:How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World' 2005
(It is a good read/listen)







- Original Message - 





From: Taylor 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: November 22, 2005
07:52





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor













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).













Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could
maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she
respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help,
too.











Thanks,











Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Another baseless Accusation...

So we do not have Christs words at all?  Since all we have are these "family of documents" which do not contain His words.You have basically said we DO NOT HAVE THE WORDS OF CHRIST!  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You assume these are the words of Christ. The translators are not deleting the words of Christ. They are translating a family of documents. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:40:45 -0500Subject: [TruthTalk] Another baseless Accusation...  Could
 it be that California rarified air? You need to own your own error JD and do the right thing by taking responsibility. You wrote:  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.JdButchered by the critics? penknife  Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, in foot-notes and translations, have changed and mutilated the Greek text in about six thousand places. This is why we have so many omissions in our modern Bibles. Words omitted, in brackets, parentheses, or italics are counted as not authentic according to brain-washed modern scholarship. With a red pencil mark all these omissions which occur in your Bible and prepare yourself for a big surprise. 
 Matthew1:25 firstborn is omitted.   5:44 bless them that curse you is omitted.   6:13: kingdom, power, glory is omitted.   6:27 stature is changed.   6:33 of God is omitted.   8:29 Jesus is omitted (as Son of God).   9:13 to repentance is omitted (in calling sinners).   12:35 of the heart is omitted.   12:47 verse is omitted (about Christ?s mother).   13:51 Jesus said unto them, and Lord are omitted.   15:8 draweth unto me with their mouth is omitted.   16:3 O ye hypocrites is omitted.   16:20 Jesus is omitted.   17:21 verse is out (about prayer and fasting).   18:11 verse is out (telling that Jesus came to save).   19:9 last 11 words (about adultery) are omitted.   19:17 God is omitted. None good but (God).   20:7 whatsoever is right receive is omitted.   20:16 many be called but few chosen is omitted.   20:22 baptised with Christ?s baptism is omitted.   21:44 verse is
 omitted (about Christ the stone).   23:14 verse is omitted (woe to Scribes and hypocrites).   25:13 wherein the Son of Man cometh is omitted.   27:35 fulfilled spoken by the prophet is omitted.   27:54 the Son of God is changed to a son of God.   28:2 from the door is omitted.   28:9 they went to tell his disciples is omitted.   Mark1:1 Son of God omitted in Nestle, New World, Wescott and Hort, and others.   1:14 of the kingdom is omitted (concerning Jesus? gospel).   1:31 immediately is omitted (about Christ?s miracle).   2:17 to repentance is omitted.   6:11 more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah is omitted.   6:16 from the dead is omitted.   6:33 him is changed to them.   7:8 washing of pots and cups is omitted.   7:16 verse is omitted (about having an ear to hear).   9:24 Lord is omitted. (A believer called Jesus Lord).   9:42 verse is omitted (about Hell).   9:46 verse is
 omitted (about Hell).   9:49 every sacrifice shall be salted is omitted.   10:21 take up the cross is omitted.   10:24 for them that trust in riches is omitted.   11:10 in the name of the Lord is omitted.   11:26 verse is omitted (about forgiveness).   13:14 spoken of by Daniel the prophet is omitted.   13:33 and pray is omitted, or in italics.   14:68 and the cock crew is omitted.   15:28 verse is omitted (about Scripture being fulfilled).   15:39 the Son of God is changed to a son of God.   16:9-20 whole 12 verses are omitted in some Bibles or put in parenthesis.   Luke1:28 blessed are thou among women is omitted.   2:33 Joseph is changed to father.   2:43 Joseph and his mother is changed to parents.   4:4 but by every word of God is omitted.   4:8 get thee behind me Satan is omitted.   4:41 the Christ is omitted (about the Son of God being Christ).   6:48 founded upon a
 rock is changed to well-built.   7:31 and the Lord said is omitted.   9:54 even as Elijah did is omitted.   9:55 ye know not what manner of spirit is omitted.   9:56 son of man is come to save lives is omitted.   11:2-4 much is omitted from the Lord?s prayer.   11:29 the prophet is out (about Jonah).   17:36 verse is omitted (one taken, another left).   21:4 cast in unto the offerings of God is omitted.   22:20 verse is out in NEB and RSV.   22:31 and the Lord said is omitted.   22:64 they struck him on the face is omitted.   23:17 whole verse is omitted in many modern versions.   23:38 letters of Greek, Latin, Hebrew is omitted.   23:42 Lord is omitted (the thief addressing Jesus).   23:45 sun was eclipsed in Moffatt and NEB.   24:3 of the Lord Jesus is omitted.   24:6 He is not here, but is risen is omitted.   24:12 verse is omitted

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

MayI qoute you?"Move on , Judy. I have. "Case closed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You forgot "and be sure to cut and run when the opposition asks us question that we cannot answer without admitting problems with our point of view." -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:17:49 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmDon't teach them about Bread Change God's word Maybe banana chips would be a good Translation for BreadJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it off on others? What makes you think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance, So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the
entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?From: Christine Miller 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, 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

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Why don't you repost these Mega Nuke questions for all to see they must be real tuff ones.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You forgot "and be sure to cut and run when the opposition asks us question that we cannot answer without admitting problems with our point of view." -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:17:49 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htmDon't teach them about Bread Change God's word Maybe banana chips would be a good Translation for BreadJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Could you for once deign to explain your own meaning Lance rather than put it
off on others? What makes you think they understand any better than I do? You keep telling ppl to think global - what's that all about? If the Yali guy doesn't know about snow, bread, etc. Get him a Little Golden Book and show and tell On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:52:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?From: Judy Taylor Interesting answer Lance, So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many
words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?From: Christine Miller 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, 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

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

My point is it is a good translation to tranlate it simply as sactifiED PERIOD Bill was asked to provide ERRORS in the KJV, this is not an error in fact is the way MOST Translators Translations translate the verse David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, the KJV inserts the words "THEM THAT ARE" which is not in the text as separate words. So what is your point?In regards to the other modern texts that fall inline with how the KJV translators did it... GOOD POINT!Peace be with you.David Miller.- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorHe is talking about the NUance of the greek idiom Yet the Nuance does not INSERT the whole word "BEING" The Greek word for "Being" is neither in the Textus Receptus NOR the 27th Corrected Greek of N/A (I checked the 26th also NOT THERE!) The word as given hagiazo in the text, is in the formof
a Present Passive Participle. When considering it's MOOD, itcan be TRANSLATED sanctifyING or santifiED The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed to the basic verb form.So they INSERT as the NKJV NIV do the word BEING which is not in the text to get "being sanified" As posted earlier even the ASV Beloved NASV Translate it W/O being as "santifiED" It is HARDLY a KJV error, if it was MOST other Translations commit the same error and so too, most Greek Scholars!It is just someones PREFERENCE that ALIGNS with their THEOLOGY! JD Bill insert it since they are in process of becoming Christians.Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: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)."Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too.Thanks,Bill__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Title: Evaluating the New International Version







- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 6:52:39 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

No Judy, I am not saying (meaning) that! Anyone care to explain my MEANING to Judy?
cd: Let me try-You are defending the KJV ? Correct?

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: November 22, 2005 06:28
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

Interesting answer Lance,
So what are you saying? Should God's Word be dumbed down to accommodate pagan animistic cultures?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:09:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A friend, John Wilson, worked with the Yali (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) for 20+ years. He worked with a team to help construct a written language (they didn't have one) then, went on to translate the entire Bible into Yali. One snowy night in February, some years back, Otto, a Yali who was proofreading the manuscript, came into our store. Many words had to be changed as they hadn't such things in their culture (snow, bread etc.). This was not a KJV. How many similar stories exist all over the globe?

- Original Message - 
From: Christine Miller 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: November 21, 2005 16:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm

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 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, 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

RE: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin




You can't manipulate me into feeling guilty, DaveH. (Why do 
mormons try to use that manipulation tool more than any other?) It's all on your 
own head, not mine. I have only spoken truth to you, and you have chosen to 
believe JSmith's lies instead.But nice try. 
iz


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave 
HansenSent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:56 AMTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a 
blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin
DAVEH: Sounds like you are now guessing, Izzy. 
Interestingly, listening to you persuades me to remain in my 
religion.ShieldsFamily wrote: 

  
  

  
  If you were listening 
  to the Holy Spirit you would not persist in your cult religion. 
  iz
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  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] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!




The Pity Party? 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:15 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!




Thanks for the words. My hat is off to your 
abilityto remain civil.

What could we name this "club" of which we are hapless members?

Jd 

-Original Message-From: Dave Hansen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 
Nov 2005 06:47:00 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and 
lives in the PoGP!


DAVEH: Note to John.You are going to have a hard time 
defending yourself against such accusations. Some TTers apparently enjoy making wild and false 
claims repeatedly, and refuse to back them up with direct quotes of 
evidence. For you to prove a negative is impossible, so eventually it will 
be believed that you said something you didn't. Welcome to the truth as 
found in TT, Bishop!

  You have me confused with someone else. Might ask Lance 
  or maybe Dean -- whoever but not me. 
  



:-)
cd: Are you lying 
JD? You did make those statements of 
Rabbis being Mormons.-- 
~~~
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: Fw: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

So the two different translations are BOTH True? You see the same meaning conveyed by: NIV because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.KJV For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.One transaction is complete One is not, which for you? Yet even in the NIV the action being performed (in the 1st part of the verse) is already complete "one sacrifice he has made perfect" and is MADE Perfect! Shouldn't it be translated "BEING MADE PERFECT"?And of course this is a Grievious ERROR inthe KJV? Which by the way that was the initial ISSUE.David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin wrote: I would like to know where you found the word BEING in the text other than the MOOD which is an ENDING not another word.In Greek, it is much more common to make a single word convey the mood and tense and even object, but in English we tend to add more words. The authority to add "being" is the same authority for adding "THEM THAT ARE." It is something thought to be communicated by the ending of the Greek text. This is why the KJV does not put these words in italics.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.orgIf 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. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor




LOL!!!


JD  Bill insert it since they are in process of becoming 
Christians.

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

But the "the ones being sanctified" refers back to the action of the first part of the verse, not that the action or santification is a continuous process in need of completeion that is not in the Mood of the greek.David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, you are reading an English translation of a Greek text. The assumption Bill makes is that the Greek text reads closer to the intended meaning of the passage and should be preferred to the English rendering. I don't have a problem with this assumption that he makes. Do you?In the Heb. 10:14 passage that Bill brings up, the word for
sanctified is a derivation of hagiazo (holy / sanctified) combined with a definite article. Bringing it over directly into English is a little problematic. In Greek, it transliterates as "tous hagiazomenous" which is a present passive/middle participle. Literally, it might come over as "the ones being sanctified" or "those who are sanctified." There are not any other Greek texts conjugating this word this waythat I am aware of, so I don't think any of us can be toodogmatic about the right way to translate here. Some of this comes down to how much you trust the Greek scholars.In the 1 Cor. 7:14 passage that you bring up, while the wording looks similar in English, it is different in Greek. There is no definite article, and the word is parsed as "hegiasiai."This word
here is conjugated as being perfect indicative passive. This means the Greek puts more emphasis here on the completeness and finality of the action (being sanctified).So while in the English you see "is sanctified" and "are sanctified" as beingsimilar, the Greek actually shows a little more difference than this ("hegiasiai" in 1 Cor.7:14versus "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14).Of course, you can also use a little common sense. Are we not all in a state of being sanctified? I know you believe that we are. You have said so yourself many times. Now all this being said, I also
disagree that this passage would illustrate an error in the KJV. One might rightly argue that "are sanctified" in English is present passive, but one might argue that a connotation of present repeating action is lost, and so they might favor "are being sanctified" as a better translation. The truth is that neither translation fits exactly. Nevertheless, when we read the text, it seems to me that we really all agree on what is true, that we are all sanctified, and we are all in the process of being sanctified, at the same time.Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive verbs.. Are we in the
last days with apostasy and falling away or what?? judytIs there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too. Thanks, BillOn Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:52:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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)__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Nevertheless, when we read the text, it seems to me that we really all agree on what is true, that we are all sanctified, and we are all in the process of being sanctified, at the same time.I gree with you here, but with reference to the verse I believe it refers to the first portion of the sentence which would be the first part of your statement also. The action that sanctifies is done. Without the santifying power of God where would we be? David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, you are reading an English translation
of a Greek text. The assumption Bill makes is that the Greek text reads closer to the intended meaning of the passage and should be preferred to the English rendering. I don't have a problem with this assumption that he makes. Do you?In the Heb. 10:14 passage that Bill brings up, the word for sanctified is a derivation of hagiazo (holy / sanctified) combined with a definite article. Bringing it over directly into English is a little problematic. In Greek, it transliterates as "tous hagiazomenous" which is a present passive/middle participle. Literally, it might come over as "the ones being sanctified" or "those who are sanctified." There are not any other Greek texts conjugating this word this waythat I am aware of, so I don't think any of us can be toodogmatic about the right way to translate here. Some of
this comes down to how much you trust the Greek scholars.In the 1 Cor. 7:14 passage that you bring up, while the wording looks similar in English, it is different in Greek. There is no definite article, and the word is parsed as "hegiasiai."This word here is conjugated as being perfect indicative passive. This means the Greek puts more emphasis here on the completeness and finality of the action (being sanctified).So while in the English you see "is sanctified" and "are sanctified" as beingsimilar, the Greek actually shows a little more difference than this ("hegiasiai" in 1 Cor.7:14versus "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14).Of course, you can also use a little common sense. Are we not all in a state of being sanctified? I know you believe that we are. You have said so yourself many times. Now all this being said, I also disagree that this passage would illustrate an error in the KJV. One might rightly argue that "are sanctified" in English is present passive, but one might argue that a connotation of present repeating action is lost, and so they might favor "are being sanctified" as a better translation. The truth is that neither translation fits exactly. Nevertheless, when we read the text, it seems to me that we really all agree on what is true, that we are all sanctified, and we are all in the process of being sanctified, at the same time.Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Hmmm - Just as I thought, the Holy Spirit has been fired and men have taken over; men who exalt Greek present passive verbs.. Are we in the last days with apostasy and falling away or what?? judytIs there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he needs your help, too. Thanks, BillOn Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:52:26 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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)
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin

Boy that is a GOOD Reason!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  DAVEH: Sounds like you are now guessing, Izzy. Interestingly, listening to you persuades me to remain in my religion.ShieldsFamily wrote: If you were listening to the Holy Spirit you would not persist in your cult religion. izDAVEH: 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) 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.  --   ~~~  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!

Vote Row L!ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  The Pity Party?   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:15 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!  Thanks for the words. My hat is off to your
 abilityto remain civil.What could we name this "club" of which we are hapless members?Jd -Original Message-From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:47:00 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Moses sees god's face and lives in the PoGP!  DAVEH: Note to John.You are going to have a hard time defending yourself against such accusations. Some TTers apparently enjoy making wild and false claims repeatedly, and refuse to back them up with direct quotes of evidence. For you to prove a negative is impossible, so eventually it will be believed that you said something you didn't. Welcome to the truth as found in TT, Bishop!You have me confused with someone
 else. Might ask Lance or maybe Dean -- whoever but not me.   :-)  cd: Are you lying JD? You did make those statements of Rabbis being Mormons.--   ~~~  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 - TT'ers

cd: Sure sounds/reads like he repented to me? JD?

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/21/2005 10:37:28 PM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - TT'ers

He was not a translator nor did he work on the translation project that is my point and that is not debateable. Who cares if a cultist repents ?? 

-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:12:15 -0800 (PST)Subject: 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,&
amp; nbsp; 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

Re: [TruthTalk] DaveH -'having a blast 'sporting with us folks' says Kevin

Should stand in God's court too.Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Boy that is a GOOD Reason!Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   DAVEH: Sounds like you are now guessing, Izzy. Interestingly, listening to you persuades me to remain in my religion.ShieldsFamily wrote: If you were listening to the Holy Spirit you would not persist in your cult religion. izDAVEH: 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) 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.  --   ~~~  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. 
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

RE: [TruthTalk] Emailing: NIV.htm




Kevin, could 
you please kindly repost the information on why you object to the NIV? Thanks in 
advance, izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

But the problem does not justify the wholesale removal of words phrases verses from God's word.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Lance, what does that have to do with anything regarding the Word of God? Whether America and the West remain on top or China takes over, nations rise and fall, but the Word of God stands unchallenged forever. We should attempt to keep it as pure as possible in whatever language it is translated. But you have made a good point; I have no idea how to translate bread into banana chips. Hopefully the translators do not have a political agenda that are doing the translating, and have prayed with pure hearts to be led by the Holy Spirit. izzyFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:25 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Yes Virginia, there really are languages other than English.Thesis:The implosion of the West (including USA). The ascendency of the two most populous nations on earth; China and
India. (See Ted Fisman's 'China Inc.:How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World' 2005 (It is a good read/listen) - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 22, 2005 07:52Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor 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)."Is there someone here who speaks Judy's language that could maybe explain to her the meaning of a presentpassive verb? If she respects you, she may listen. The same goesfor Kevin; he
needs your help, too.Thanks,Bill
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Re: [TruthTalk] Perry Dave: inquiring minds want to know

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 7:00:07 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

CD:You sound an aweful lot like the 'Church lady' (SNL).You are always invoking the name of Satan and, demonstrating a remarkably low level of discernment? Sadly, I acknowledge remaining with TT, at least in part, for the amusement provided by such as yourself, Linda, Judy, Kevin, Christine and David (Miller). Happily, from time to time, such as Bill Taylor and John Smithson reflect that too rare combination of exegesis. exposition and theological instinct. Those rare treats fall like water on an otherwise dry ground.
cd: I imagine from you point of view it would be better to call DaH a brother and preach God loves everybody then we can sing Com-baa-rya and every thing will be ok-The only problem is that is not Biblical.How can one teach the bible and leave Satan and Hell out of it?Unless you too have one of those newfangled bibles that removes those parts-If not then you are happy (and amused) preaching a half gospel? If 2/3 thirds of Christs ministry had to do with hell I can do the same.

- Original Message - 
From: Dean Moore 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: November 22, 2005 06:45
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: 11/22/2005 3:10:42 AM 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Perry  Dave: inquiring minds want to know

We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon beliefDAVEH: Forgive me, Dean...But I don't believe you are sincere about that. If I explain such things to you, I've got the feeling you will use it to denigrate that which I hold sacred.

cd: What are you afraid to bring into the light Dave ?John 3:20 For everyone that does evil hateth the light,neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that doethtruth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God.
We give you all you ask for to be examined under Satan microscope. All we get is half-truths,lies, and concealment. What are you hiding Dave? Do you chant pay-lay- ale (or versions of this) in your temple ceremony? Is Satan invoked in you Temple?Dean Moore wrote: 

cd: I notice Kevin offers proof -after proof for his statements and DaH just asks for more while providing nothing but empty words-Kevin are you a research tool for someone who doesn't regardthe material you give?If so- why do so? Let the dead bury the dead.Dah why are you here-To help us with truth by hiding the truth we ask for? We ask about one of you ceremonies to better understand your Mormon belief-you refuse? Why are you here?

-- 
~~~
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] Emailing: NIV.htm