Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
JD wrote: ... I would venture the guess that not a single translator, if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T came up with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said. Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. Robertston in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way: But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in hagontes (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of tous hagiazomenous in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10). Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative. If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14. 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
askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
There are a couple of things that could be said about "descriptive duratives" in view of the literal translation of "being sanctified"and all -- I say all -- that Bill had to say on the subject.but first things first -- I couldn't find your reference in Robertson'sGreek grammar.Perhaps a page number. And it might be of more help to me if you gave the Table of Index headingin which this commentary is made just in case our page numbers do not match up (my copy is a 1934 editiion). Thanks-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor JD wrote: ... I would venture the guess that not a single translator, if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T came up with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said. Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. Robertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way: "But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)." Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative. If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14. 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
..isn't temptation a human experience? explain it otherwise, bro On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:50:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
You can't finda greek grammar that will disagree with what hehas said. DM shoots down your false accusations and now it is YOU THAT CAN NOT FIND!"Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars." OUCH!JD why not stop the foolishness and start having a real conversation?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't find your reference in Robertson'sGreek grammar.Perhaps a page number. And it might be of more help to me if you gave the Table of Index headingin which this commentary is made just in case our page numbers do not match up (my copy is a 1934 editiion). -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote: ... I would venture the guess that not a single translator, if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T came up with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said.Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. Robertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way:"But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative.If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14.Peace be with you.David Miller. Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
You should never has ceased being the moderator of TT 'G'!! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 26, 2005 08:50 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
..how is one tempted exclusively by the Word of God? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 07:14:43 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..isn't temptation a human experience? explain it otherwise, bro On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:50:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
and grammar itself--does it not facilitate the expressiveness of both God and man? let's see you right wing wackos,w/o absurditity, remove the human experience from the grammar of the NT On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:25:59 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorNotice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durative.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Just to clarify. My Robertson's has a listing of scriptures discussed. Heb 10:10 and 10:14 are not on that list. I am thinking they are a part of a secondary discussion in the book and that is why they are not on the list. I don"t know that but I am giving David the benefit of the doubt. I just want to see thecomments referred to in the actual context of their statement. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:25:59 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You can't finda greek grammar that will disagree with what hehas said. DM shoots down your false accusations and now it is YOU THAT CAN NOT FIND!"Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars." OUCH! JD why not stop the foolishness and start having a real conversation? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't find your reference in Robertson'sGreek grammar.Perhaps a page number. And it might be of more help to me if you gave the Table of Index headingin which this commentary is made just in case our page numbers do not match up (my copy is a 1934 editiion). -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote: ... I would venture the guess that not a single translator, if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T came up with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said.Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. R obertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way:"But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durati ve.If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14.Peace be with you.David Miller. Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Why not allow DavidM's wife to speak for herself? You have introduced gossip and heresy here. Were you invited to bepresent for the birth of their children? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:50:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
interesting idea--she can tell us in her own wordshow childbirth goes without human experience On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:05:21 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not allow DavidM's wife to speak for herself?
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
You are carrying my comment into absurdity. What I said was written in the same vein as "we walk by faith not by sight." I'm not denying my engagement with the human experience. I'm talking about where my heart and confidence is. I can either choose to walk by the Word of God or by my carnal human experience. I choose to keep my eyes on the Word of God. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor ..how is one tempted exclusively by the Word of God? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 07:14:43 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..isn't temptation a human experience? explain it otherwise, bro On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:50:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
wanna describe your engagement? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:19:44 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not denying my engagement with the human experience.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
You are probably looking at the wrong index. Also, 1934 is the copyright date, not the edition. We have been over this edition stuff before in regards to Thayer. I hope we don't havea repeat here. The publisher is what is important when you get down to page numbers. My copy is from Broadman Press. The quote was from page 891, toward the bottom of the page. You can read about his treatment of durative action, descriptive present tense,progressive present tense, etc. on page 879. If the page numbers do not correspond to your text, let me know. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Just to clarify. My Robertson's has a listing of scriptures discussed. Heb 10:10 and 10:14 are not on that list. I am thinking they are a part of a secondary discussion in the book and that is why they are not on the list. I don"t know that but I am giving David the benefit of the doubt. I just want to see thecomments referred to in the actual context of their statement. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:25:59 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You can't finda greek grammar that will disagree with what hehas said. DM shoots down your false accusations and now it is YOU THAT CAN NOT FIND!"Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars." OUCH! JD why not stop the foolishness and start having a real conversation? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't find your reference in Robertson'sGreek grammar.Perhaps a page number. And it might be of more help to me if you gave the Table of Index headingin which this commentary is made just in case our page numbers do not match up (my copy is a 1934 editiion). -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote: ... I would venture the guess that not a single translator, if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T came up with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said.Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. R obertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way:"But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durati ve.If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14.Peace be with you.David Miller. Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Actually, Caroline would probably give God glory in how the Word of God has worked in our child birth experiences. She seemed to have avoided the curse of pain in childbirth, and our children entered the world in a truly beautiful manner. Nevertheless, I think Gary's point is that I am a carnal creature in the sense that I am flesh and live the human experience like everyone else. In that he is right, but he seems to have missed my point about living by the Word of God in the same way that many missed Jesus' point that those who have seen him have seen the Father. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Why not allow DavidM's wife to speak for herself? You have introduced gossip and heresy here. Were you invited to bepresent for the birth of their children? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:50:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Gary you are not that masterful, even, at twisting the words and meanings of others. David Miller never said we should not have human experiences. He said we should not judge Gods Word according to such. Of course you would miss that point. izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:09 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor interesting idea--she can tell us in her own wordshow childbirth goes without human experience On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:05:21 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not allow DavidM's wife to speak for herself?
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
FWIW Debbie, who read this exchange, believed that Gary intentionally misrepresented you. I, on the other hand, do not. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 26, 2005 11:37 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Actually, Caroline would probably give God glory in how the Word of God has worked in our child birth experiences. She seemed to have avoided the curse of pain in childbirth, and our children entered the world in a truly beautiful manner. Nevertheless, I think Gary's point is that I am a carnal creature in the sense that I am flesh and live the human experience like everyone else. In that he is right, but he seems to have missed my point about living by the Word of God in the same way that many missed Jesus' point that those who have seen him have seen the Father. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Why not allow DavidM's wife to speak for herself? You have introduced gossip and heresy here. Were you invited to bepresent for the birth of their children? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:50:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Oh the wisdom of the womeniz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 11:08 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor FWIW Debbie, who read this exchange, believed that Gary intentionally misrepresented you. I, on the other hand, do not. - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 26, 2005 11:37 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Actually, Caroline would probably give God glory in how the Word of God has worked in our child birth experiences. She seemed to have avoided the curse of pain in childbirth, and our children entered the world in a truly beautiful manner. Nevertheless, I think Gary's point is that I am a carnal creature in the sense that I am flesh and live the human experience like everyone else. In that he is right, but he seems to have missed my point about living by the Word of God in the same way that many missed Jesus' point that those who have seen him have seen the Father. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Why not allow DavidM's wife to speak for herself? You have introduced gossip and heresy here. Were you invited to bepresent for the birth of their children? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:50:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: askDavidMs (brainwashed?) wife about this subject, Bro--she knows the drill, all about the absurdity of life minus human experience--tell her how beautifullyher childrenentered the world exclusively by the Word of God minus human experience--and now DavidM denies this is hishuman experience, too? JC, the WoG himself, wasn't born here and didn't live here this way in denial of (such) human experience and reality--it's absurd! On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:16:26 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God. judyt He that says I know Him and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
My 1934 editionis from Broadman Press as well. The page number was suffienct information, David. Thank you. jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:30:37 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You are probably looking at the wrong index. Also, 1934 is the copyright date, not the edition. We have been over this edition stuff before in regards to Thayer. I hope we don't havea repeat here. The publisher is what is important when you get down to page numbers. My copy is from Broadman Press. The quote was from page 891, toward the bottom of the page. You can read about his treatment of durative action, descriptive present tense,progressive present tense, etc. on page 879. If the page numbers do not correspond to your text, let me know. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Just to clarify. My Robertson's has a listing of scriptures discussed. Heb 10:10 and 10:14 are not on that list. I am thinking they are a part of a secondary discussion in the book and that is why they are not on the list. I don"t know that but I am giving David the benefit of the doubt. I just want to see thecomments referred to in the actual context of their statement. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:25:59 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You can't finda greek grammar that will disagree with what hehas said. DM shoots down your false accusations and now it is YOU THAT CAN NOT FIND!"Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars." OUCH! JD why not stop the foolishness and start having a real conversation? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't find your reference in Robertson'sGreek grammar.Perhaps a page number. And it might be of more help to me if you gave the Table of Index headingin which this commentary is made just in case our page numbers do not match up (my copy is a 1934 editiion). -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:48:06 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote: ... I would venture the guess that not a single translator, if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T came up with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said.Apparently you have not consulted too many grammars. A.T. R obertston in "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament" writes about Hebrews 10:14 in the following way:"But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpose in "hagontes" (Ac. 21:16). In tous sozomenous (Ac. 2:47) the ide a is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of "tous hagiazomenous" in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10)."Notice how Robertson actually approaches this passage exactly the same way that Judy did for meaning. He goes back to Heb. 10:10, just like Judy did, to argue the proper meaning of 10:14 away from a progressive or iterative concept. His conclusion is similar to Judy's in that he says 10:14 is CERTAINLY ONLY descriptive durat i ve.If you are familiar with Robertson's grammar, you know that he separates the durative action into various categories, the progressive present being one (which is Bill Taylor's treatment of Heb. 10:14) and the descriptive present being another one. I think if Robertson were here, he would have some comments that would pull Bill Taylor away from his present dogmatic stance. Considering how most translators have shied away from commiting to a progressive syntax, I think there are likely to be many others that would likewise find some disagreement with Bill's solid commitment to a progressive present meaning of Heb. 10:14.Peace be wit h you.David Miller. Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
i'm not misrepresentingthis statement either; DavidM ain't seen JC nor the Father, and, even if he has, he's no better than Moses who's no better than Paul neither of whose ministriesisqualified bysubjective, dualisticabsurdity--whatever we've seen of God is visable to anyone else who's looking, even one's lowly wife On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:07:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: many missed Jesus' point that those who have seen him have seen the Father.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Of course you are ... and what's more he is better than Moses. Jesus said John the Baptist (not Moses) was the greatest under the Old Covenant and the leastin the Kingdom are greater than he which would include DavidM's wife Caroline. I don't understand your continual tanget about dualism but good vs evil is spiritual reality; denial of same is the absurdity. I've never seen DavidM refer to his wife as "lowly" He has called her his best friend and from other things he has said I am sure the women in his household will be educated and able to hold their own with anyone male, female, bond or free. Does the fact that he believes in being the head of his household and takes spiritual leadership and responsibility for them somehow denigrate him in your eyes Gary? On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:44:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i'm not misrepresentingthis statement either; DavidM ain't seen JC nor the Father, and, even if he has, he's no better than Moses who's no better than Paul neither of whose ministriesisqualified bysubjective, dualisticabsurdity--whatever we've seen of God is visable to anyone else who's looking, even one's lowly wife On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:07:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: many missed Jesus' point that those who have seen him have seen the Father. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
absurdly subjective as usual--Moses, who like JtB,actually sawJC, is (also)'humble'--check it out, he was unusually humble; by contrast, DavidM ain't even seenJC and is absurdly arrogant; JtB, by the way, was 'great/est' because he terminated the the reign of the Mosaic law (as Moses himself anticipated in hope), not because he triedkeeping it in the face of gracein thereign of God in Christ--he knew whom he was worshipping and why On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:22:33 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..he is better than Moses. Jesus said John the Baptist (not Moses) was the greatest
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
ftr, thiswould betrue--as someone suggested, let her speak for herself On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 15:22:33 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the leastin the Kingdom..would include DavidM's wife Caroline
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
whatever we've seen of God is visable to anyone else who's looking, even one's lowly wife this , I believe , is an extremely important statement. I couldn't agree more. "Enlightenment" when used to imply knowledge that is not available to anyone who cares to look is nothing less than mythology and nothing more than the cornerstone of cultism(s). jd-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:44:47 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor i'm not misrepresentingthis statement either; DavidM ain't seen JC nor the Father, and, even if he has, he's no better than Moses who's no better than Paul neither of whose ministriesisqualified bysubjective, dualisticabsurdity--whatever we've seen of God is visable to anyone else who's looking, even one's lowly wife On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:07:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: many missed Jesus' point that those who have seen him have seen the Father.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:20:17 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: whatever we've seen of God is [visible] to anyone else who's looking, even one's lowly wife this , I believe , is an extremely important statement.. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Thanks for the Illustration in the foolishness of trusting the critics to ever settle the matter. Let the greek scholars argue amongst themselves over trivial matters while we go on our way loving our King and obeying the revelation He has already given to the those before and now us. While we run the race set before us they can iron out these issues on the sideline. They probably won't even notice since they will be absorbed into the Greek Game! Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: Iinclude "themselves" here because there is no other object to receive the action of the verb: sanctification.DM Sanctification / Sanctified is NOT the verb. Maybe this is what is causing some of the confusion here.My apologies, David, I did not mean to imply that the word sanctification is a verb, although I can see how you could conclude that this is what I was stating. I meant to convey the idea that sanctification is what the verb is about; it is what the subject is producing in its (in this instance, his) recipients.DM The KJV translates the passage in present tense, not past tense. It does not indicate that our sanctification is complete or not complete. It only indicates that we are sanctified. Do we agree on this?Well, not exactly, David-- but I appreciate what you have done to crystallize my thinking here. While yours is a possible reading, it is not a necessary reading, and as such the KJ translation is not here as definite as it ought to be in order to be considered avery "good" translation. Let me explain.In English the verb "are," when used with a participle, performs a linking function,but it does not necessarily express voice; i.e, it may also be functioning exclusively as a descriptive (those who "are sanctified," the action being complete).*And so when used by itself, "are" is syntactically ambiguous: it could be a passive auxiliaryor merely a verb of status, and this becausethere is nothing definite to force it to go one way or the other. In order to resolve the ambiguity, definition must be providedby adding another "be" verb (cf. "are being") which also makes the verb progressive (e.g., We are being sanctified as opposed to We are sanctified), and it is only now that the verb can be construed as a distinct passive --not descriptive; hence two semantic effects are accomplishby the one syntactic change: forcing a passive interpretation, and adding a progressive aspect.This, in my opinion,is what is taking place in the Greek,where the participle hagiazomenousis definitely passive as well as progressively present (unless, as I demonstrated yesterday, you want to argue for a middle voice, which would also need to be translated in a way which would convey definition). And so, my conclusion is this: the present tense thrust of this participle needs to be extended beyond a mere linking verb if it is to convey a definitepassive voice in a presentprogressive state; therefore it needs toread "those who are being sanctified." And so,my criticism remains the same: '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?' But, David, I am ready to leave off on this discussion, as I can tell that it has become too complex to be helpful to the average Joe -- or Dean or Terry :) so I hope that you will consider these distinctions,and maybebegin to see thereasons for my concern. God bless you and yours,Bill*I want to acknowledge Debbie for her contribution, via a sidebar exchange,in communicating these rather difficult concepts. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
cd: Judy I think we are being called ignorant by Miller,Bill.and others will add their remarks to show their superiority. Yet for a week now they could no come to any conclusion on the meaning of one word in the Bible-Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. Imagine what would happen if these superior Genius' decide to interpreted the entire bible-all of us ignorant people would be in heaven-with the other ignorant people-before they could complete one book of the bible.I thank God that he had pity on us poor dumb humans else our IQs would prevent us from ever obtaining salvation-and then only the wise superior intellectuals would make it. Yet have you noticed how must that same group lacks in understanding-They don't even know to keep God's commandments and see no difference in the behavior of the saved and the lost-they believe we all are ongoing sinful people. They often run around speaking in tongues that no one ca n understand to show how holy they are while no one can figure on the meaning of their words-Maybe they are repeating the answer to the present passive voice question in a heavenly language and don't know it. So don't feel bad God love stupid people too-we will just have to make use with the little intellect we have:-) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 2:10:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:07:01 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think they were misled by the passage. I think they perceived that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove your point. This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated. You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the educational background to talk on your level about these matters. We really should not run roughshod over them. We need to do the translating for them. Wait a minute David, this really troubles me. Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem? You've mentioned in the past that you think I am against education. Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is going to work on me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is IMO totally misplaced in the body of Christ and from my experience it has caused no end ofproblems. All education can do is give one a historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works sincewe are still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not good. I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being sanctified. My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, same forsanctification; andI saw the verse in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and theonce for all aspect. So all we did on that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to do which is to "strive about words to no profit" I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers (those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification). Am I missing something David, are theresome who are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not others? This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess 5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the start. Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept. You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she took that position. I know I just lost you... sorry. I'm tired and must sign off now. God bless. JD's claim that Kevin and I prove his point is ironic since he and Bill proved the point made earlier about the danger of the newer translations where men feel free to correct God's Word in light of the "supposedly" newer Greek (read Westcott and Hort) manuscripts. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No it does not Perhaps this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly, do not and that is my point. The average reader will see this as a completed action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point. IN THAT REGARD, this is a poor translation of the text. A much better translation would be as Bill suggested, IMO. Jd-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTal
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Neither myth or absurd, but the normal reaction of one who lives to please Christ. Many people hear the word. Fewer believe it. Fewer still live it. Very few are marinated in it until it is a part of who they are. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: myth (absurd) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:54 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not live by human experience, but by the Word of God.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I have every confidence that neither David Miller nor Bill Taylor thought the two of you 'ignorant'. Their character (read sanctification) wouldn't permit such a thought.However, after reading this...welln, they still wouldn't! - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 25, 2005 08:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: Judy I think we are being called ignorant by Miller,Bill.and others will add their remarks to show their superiority. Yet for a week now they could no come to any conclusion on the meaning of one word in the Bible-Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. Imagine what would happen if these superior Genius' decide to interpreted the entire bible-all of us ignorant people would be in heaven-with the other ignorant people-before they could complete one book of the bible.I thank God that he had pity on us poor dumb humans else our IQs would prevent us from ever obtaining salvation-and then only the wise superior intellectuals would make it. Yet have you noticed how must that same group lacks in understanding-They don't even know to keep God's commandments and see no difference in the behavior of the saved and the lost-they believe we all are ongoing sinful people. They often run around speaking in tongues that no one ca n understand to show how holy they are while no one can figure on the meaning of their words-Maybe they are repeating the answer to the present passive voice question in a heavenly language and don't know it. So don't feel bad God love stupid people too-we will just have to make use with the little intellect we have:-) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 2:10:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:07:01 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think they were misled by the passage. I think they perceived that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove your point. This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated. You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the educational background to talk on your level about these matters. We really should not run roughshod over them. We need to do the translating for them. Wait a minute David, this really troubles me. Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem? You've mentioned in the past that you think I am against education. Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is going to work on me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is IMO totally misplaced in the body of Christ and from my experience it has caused no end ofproblems. All education can do is give one a historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works sincewe are still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not good. I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being sanctified. My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, same forsanctification; andI saw the verse in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and theonce for all aspect. So all we did on that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to do which is to "strive about words to no profit" I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers (those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification). Am I missing something David, are theresome who are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not others? This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess 5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the start. Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept. You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid rea
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cd: Judy I think we are being called ignorant by Miller,Bill.and others will add their remarks to show their superiority. Yet for a week now they could no come to any conclusion on the meaning of one word in the Bible-Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. Imagine what would happen if these superior Genius' decide to interpreted the entire bible-all of us ignorant people would be in heaven-with the other ignorant people-before they could complete one book of the bible.I thank God that he had pity on us poor dumb humans else our IQs would prevent us from ever obtaining salvation-and then only the wise superior intellectuals would make it. Yet have you noticed how must that same group lacks in understanding-They don't even know to keep God's commandments and see no difference in the behavior of the saved and the lost-they believe we all are ongoing sinful people. They often run around speaking in tongues that no one ca n understand to show how holy they are while no one can figure on the meaning of their words-Maybe they are repeating the answer to the present passive voice question in a heavenly language and don't know it. So don't feel bad God love stupid people too-we will just have to make use with the little intellect we have:-) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 2:10:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorOn Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:07:01 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I don't think they were misled by the passage. I think they perceived that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove your point.This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated.You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the educational background to talk on your level about these matters. We really should not run roughshod over them. We need to do the translating for them.Wait a minute David, this really troubles me. Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem? You've mentioned in the past that you think I am against education. Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is going to work on me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is IMO totally misplaced in the body of Christ and from my experience it has caused no end ofproblems. All education can do is give one a historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works sincewe are still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not good.I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being sanctified. My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, same forsanctification; andI saw the verse in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and theonce for all aspect. So all we did on that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to do which is to "strive about words to no profit"I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers (those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification). Am I missing something David, are theresome who are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not others? This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess 5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the start.Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept. You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she took that position. I know I just lost you... sorry. I'm tired and must sign off now. God bless.JD's claim that Kevin and I prove his point is ironic since he and Bill proved the point made earlier about the danger of the newer translations where men feel free to correct God's Word in light of the "supposedly" newer Greek (read Westcott and Hort) manuscripts.From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No it does not Perhaps this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly, do not and that is my point. The average reader will see this as a completed action. Kevin an
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Dean Moore wrote: cd: Judy I think we are being called ignorant by Miller,Bill.and others will add their remarks to show their superiority. Yet for a week now they could no come to any conclusion on the meaning of one word in the Bible-Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. Imagine what would happen if these superior Genius' decide to interpreted the entire bible-all of us ignorant people would be in heaven-with the other ignorant people-before they could complete one book of the bible.I thank God that he had pity on us poor dumb humans else our IQs would prevent us from ever obtaining salvation-and then only the wise superior intellectuals would make it. Yet have you noticed how must that same group lacks in understanding-They don't even know to keep God's commandments and see no difference in the behavior of the saved and the lost-they believe we all are ongoing sinful people. They often run around speaking in tongues that no one ca n understand to show how holy they are while no one can figure on the meaning of their words-Maybe they are repeating the answer to the present passive voice question in a heavenly language and don't know it. So don't feel bad God love stupid people too-we will just have to make use with the little intellect we have:-) Preach on CD. You are playin' my song!! :) Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Amazing those that argue against JD, always just end up proving his point in his OWN mind. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:58 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No it does not Perhaps this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly, do not and that is my point. The average reader will see this as a completed action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point. IN THAT REGARD, this is a poor translation of the text. A much better translation would be as Bill suggested, IMO. Jd -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor JD wrote: The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case. No it does not. The translation is present passive. You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past tense. Nothing in this translation indicates whether our sanctification is completed oris still ongoing. It only indicates that we are sanctified at the present time. Peace. David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor JD wrote: I think Bill's point (correct me if I am wrong, Bill) is that the KJ translation gives us a past tense translation of a present tense participle. There is no good reason for doing such and in that context, it is a mistake. I did not understand Bill this way, but if that is what he is saying, he would be wrong. The phrase are sanctified is not past tense. The syntax of sanctified looks like a past tense construction, but it is simply a participle construction of the verb sanctify that looks the same as the past tense form of the verb. The tense of the verb is present tense, as indicated by the word are. If it were past tense, the phrase would be were sanctified not are sanctified. The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case. JD wrote: In the English, this past tense translation circumvents ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as ongoing event by another in our lives. It would only be your own personal reading of are sanctified that would circumvent ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as an ongoing event. The phrase is present tense, and hence it does not circumvent anything of the sort. Your confusion in the first paragraph would seem to prove my point. 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. Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Amen, Dean. If only the scribes and Pharisees can understand God's Word and we must depend upon their interpretations we are in big trouble. Fortunately this is not the case. iz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Moore Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:16 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and English languages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B of this room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of a dead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there to help them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wise and gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instruct one to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if the heart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see it anyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; I have not left off the present passive aspect. In English, we don't conjugate the participle this way, but the phrase is clear enough for those of us who understand English. It carries over the present tense and passive voice just fine. Bill wrote: hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. You are reading to much into first year textbook definitions, Bill. I expect more from you. Bill wrote: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? No, of course not. My comments to Judy make this clear, and illustrate why this thread is so ridiculous. I agree with you about the reality that sanctification is an ongoing process. My comments to you concerned the exegesis of this one passage. Your question to me here misses my point entirely. Regardless of how I answer your question (and you already know my answer from past posts), the text you exegete is uneffected by the answer. In other words, your question is irrelevant, so why waste the time asking it? Present tense passive voice in English is the same as present tense passive voice in Greek. Why are you trying to make out like it is something different? It almost seems like you are presenting a situation where you, as a student of Greek, have personal private knowledge that others lack. Do you really think they are handicapped in understanding this passage because of their lack of formal education in the Greek language? 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. -- 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
We all pretty much know what this word means --generally speaking, it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness. Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man, Eph4:20-24, that we continue to harbor or possess sin I Jo 1:8, that none is righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already "saved") Ro 3:10, thatour sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin Ro 3:23, that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good), that the personal struggle betweenflesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25 -- there is simply no reasonto argue that our sanctification isan uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14. Do you see some "evil" in this opinion? Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his housewas complete when, looking back in time, it clearly was not. If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs, if he is aware of the failings of the home, he will not think it is a completed task. Jd -Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:41:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/24/2005 3:45:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor David -- I do not understand your logic here. If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing - how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time, completed?"I am being made a better person" presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me. Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?" Jd cd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside ofGod's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional roomis added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place.-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:56:58 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit. Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com wrote: I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctificationrequires the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to give. On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes: That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same as to set apart? That is not even a point of contention. Do you agree that this participle in Heb 10.14 reflect asanctification which is passive (i.e., the action is being performed by someone other than the subject) and not yet complete? Bill From: Judy Taylor I have no idea what you are talking about Bill. However I do understand Hebrews 10:14 and the word "sanctified"
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; I have not left off the present passive aspect. In English, we don't conjugate the participle this way, but the phrase is clear enough forthose of us who understand English. It carries over the present tense andpassive voice just fine. Bill wrote: hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. You are reading to much into first year textbook definitions, Bill. I expect more from you. Bill wrote: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? No, of course not. My comments to Judy make this clear, and illustratewhy this thread is so ridiculous. I agree with you about the reality that sanctification is an ongoing process. My comments to you concerned the exe gesi
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
:-)-Original Message-From: Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I am thinking about what you said in regards to Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my mouth and remove all doubt :) I think this time I'll remain silent and only thought a fool. Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Ah. Now I see. Why the race? Well, i guess I should defer to Bill, although I think I understood the point. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:20:48 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RACE. What is that about?how do you get a race outthis? I remain confused. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I know what you are commenting on JD; However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 where this thread began. Bill hasgone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14. The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice against the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Now how do you get a race outthis? You are lost because you are off on the same tangent as Bill. judyt On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry , Judy, you have lost me entirely. I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what ?? This is a great question: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave... Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come to do Your will, O God" He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" So where is this race.. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not laughting at you , David, but I am laughing at the quetion !!! Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow if you get my drift. :-) jd-Original Message-From: Taylor wmtaylor@plains.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You highlight the problemwith leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit. Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor The subject
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
DM has introduced the possiblity that I am "just plain stupid." And Kevin has used the word "fool" many times. I didn't bother reading your second paragraph. jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:32:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You are wrong Bill. I don't think along these lines and since ppl on TT are all professing believers (whether or not I think they act/talk like it) I wonder why any one here wouldcategorize anotheras an idiot/fool in light of Jesus' words about calling a brother 'raca' (or fool). As for you, from my perspective every time we get to discussing anything serious, it does not take long forLance to step up to the plate and put some kind of a 'mojo' on you and then you retreat back into silenceRush Limbaughquite obviouslydoes not have the mind of Christ, so I don't pay him any mind; he is not a disciple of the same Master. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am thinking about what you said in regards to Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my mouth and remove all doubt :) I think this time I'll remain silent and only thought a fool. Bill From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah. Now I see. Why the race? Well, i guess I should defer to Bill, although I think I understood the point. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RACE. What is that about?how do you get a race outthis? I remain confused. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I know what you are commenting on JD; However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 where this thread began. Bill hasgone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14. The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice against the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Now how do you get a race outthis? You are lost because you are off on the same tangent as Bill. judyt On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry , Judy, you have lost me entirely. I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what ?? This is a great question: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave... Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come to do Your will, O God" He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" So where is this race.. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not laughting at you , David, but I am laughing at the quetion !!! Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow if you get my drift. :-) jd-Original Message-From: Taylor wmtaylor@plains.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You highlight the problemwith leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin when Jesus died so that we could separate ourselves from sin and choose toidentify and walk in the gift ofHis righteousness. Thisseparationis known as "sanctification" Under the Old Covenant theydid it ritually as Moses regularly called the congregation to sanctify themselves We arecalled to do this in it's entirety - that is to put off sin and put on Christ The importance of this is shown in how God judgedMoses, forbidding him toenter the land of promisebecause of disobedience (in striking the rock when told to speak to it) he failed to 'sanctify the Lord in his heart' before the people On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:01:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We all pretty much know what this word means -- generally speaking, it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness. Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man,Eph4:20-24, that we continue to harbor or possess sin I Jo 1:8, that none is righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already "saved") Ro 3:10, thatour sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin Ro 3:23, that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good), that the personal struggle betweenflesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25 -- there is simply no reasonto argue that our sanctification isan uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14. Do you see some "evil" in this opinion? Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his housewas complete when, looking back in time, it clearly was not. If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs, if he is aware of the failings of the home, he will not think it is a completed task. Jd From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netcd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside of God's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional roomis added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place. JD: David -- I do not understand your logic here. If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing - how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time, completed?"I am being made a better person" presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me. Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?" Jd From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.org Bill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctificationwhich is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text. Peace be with you. David Miller. From: Taylor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit. Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either. Bill From: Kevin Deegan The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com wrote: I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctificationrequires the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to give. On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes: That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; I have not left off the present passive aspect. In English, we don't conjugate the participle this way, but the phrase is clear enough forthose of us who understand English. It carries over the present tense andpassive voice just fine. Bill wrote: hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. You are reading to much into first year textbook definitions, Bill. I expect mor
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Why didn't you read the second paragraph JD? Because it's not about you ...? On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DM has introduced the possiblity that I am "just plain stupid." And Kevin has used the word "fool" many times. I didn't bother reading your second paragraph. jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:32:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You are wrong Bill. I don't think along these lines and since ppl on TT are all professing believers (whether or not I think they act/talk like it) I wonder why any one here wouldcategorize anotheras an idiot/fool in light of Jesus' words about calling a brother 'raca' (or fool). As for you, from my perspective every time we get to discussing anything serious, it does not take long forLance to step up to the plate and put some kind of a 'mojo' on you and then you retreat back into silenceRush Limbaughquite obviouslydoes not have the mind of Christ, so I don't pay him any mind; he is not a disciple of the same Master. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am thinking about what you said in regards to Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my mouth and remove all doubt :) I think this time I'll remain silent and only thought a fool. Bill From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah. Now I see. Why the race? Well, i guess I should defer to Bill, although I think I understood the point. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RACE. What is that about?how do you get a race outthis? I remain confused. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I know what you are commenting on JD; However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 where this thread began. Bill hasgone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14. The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice against the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Now how do you get a race outthis? You are lost because you are off on the same tangent as Bill. judyt On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry , Judy, you have lost me entirely. I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what ?? This is a great question: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave... Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come to do Your will, O God" He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" So where is this race.. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not laughting at you , David, but I am laughing at the quetion !!! Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow if you get my drift. :-) jd-Original Message-From: Taylor wmtaylor@plains.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
This explains Everything. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:39 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Eh? Got relatives in Canada eh? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 24, 2005 12:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor (hey DaveH--a new TT record for concatenating responses, eh? :) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill is [sanctified], is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now]which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present tense'[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill is [sad], is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present tense'[sad]ness' is incomplete On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: myth (Bill is happy, is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present tense'happiness' is incomplete) On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete action. Bill is happy, this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his happiness. ||
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:01:46 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor We all pretty much know what this word means --generally speaking, it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness. Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man, Eph4:20-24, that we continue to harbor or possess sin I Jo 1:8, that none is righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already "saved") Ro 3:10, thatour sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin Ro 3:23, that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good), that the personal struggle betweenflesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25 -- there is simply no reasonto argue that our sanctification isan uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14. Do you see some "evil" in this opinion? cd: I see you ignoring all I have tried to show you in this opinion. Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his housewas complete when, looking back in time, it clearly was not. If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs, if he is aware of the failings of the home, he will not think it is a completed task. Jd cd :Ah- But it was complete for his need at the time-the failings could possible come when he doesn't see the reasons to expand and waits too late to do so-His house would then burst at the seams-so don't put new wine in old bottles.Yet Christ doesn't wait too late-every thing comes in its proper time.The home owner you portray has to look back to see any failings-it was complete for his needs at the earlier date-and at the later date it is still complete. Good to know one can achieve a higher level of Sanctification and look back to see what they were missing. -Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:41:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/24/2005 3:45:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor David -- I do not understand your logic here. If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing - how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time, completed?"I am being made a better person" presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me. Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?" Jd cd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside ofGod's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional roomis added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place.-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.orgTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:56:58 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text. Peace be with you. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit. Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com wro
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Judy, My identification is with the Lord. He is my righteousness. It is his faith to which I am attached.Judgments to the contrary are made out of ignorance, not fact. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:36:18 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin when Jesus died so that we could separate ourselves from sin and choose toidentify and walk in the gift ofHis righteousness. Thisseparationis known as "sanctification" Under the Old Covenant theydid it ritually as Moses regularly called the congregation to sanctify themselves We arecalled to do this in it's entirety - that is to put off sin and put on Christ The importance of this is shown in how God judgedMoses, forbidding him toenter the land of promisebecause of disobedience (in striking the rock when told to speak to it) he failed to 'sanctify the Lord in his heart' before the people On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:01:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We all pretty much know what this word means -- generally speaking, it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness. Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man,Eph4:20-24, that we continue to harbor or possess sin I Jo 1:8, that none is righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already "saved") Ro 3:10, thatour sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin Ro 3:23, that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good), that the personal struggle betweenflesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25 -- there is simply no reasonto argue that our sanctification isan uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14. Do you see some "evil" in this opinion? Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his housewas complete when, looking back in time, it clearly was not. If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs, if he is aware of the failings of the home, he will not think it is a completed task. Jd From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netcd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside of God's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional roomis added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place. JD: David -- I do not understand your logic here. If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing - how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time, completed?"I am being made a better person" presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me. Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?" Jd From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.org Bill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctificationwhich is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text. Peace be with you. David Miller. From: Taylor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit. Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either. Bill From: Kevin Deegan The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com wrote: I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctificationrequires the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to give. On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes: That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to sanctify does not mean the same
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; I have not left off the present passive aspect. In English, we don't conjugate the participle th
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Then childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner? On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 11:01:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-) cd: Yet it would seem that these children on this site could teach you many things-Where has you MSS gotten you.You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.Yet the saved have the Holy Spirit teaching them how to avoid sin. This is pre-bible 101 stuff John.I feel sorry for the poor little weak Christians that don't know any better that that.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instruct
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Then childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner? On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room ar
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I have never said this:You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 11:01:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-) cd: Yet it would seem that these children on this site could teach you many things-Where has you MSS gotten you.You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.Yet the saved have the Holy Spirit teaching them how to avoid sin. This is pre-bible 101 stuff John.I feel sorry for the poor little weak Christians that don't know any better that that.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room ar
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 12:01:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I have never said this:You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin. cd: You said "both are sinners"-that is saying there is no difference.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 11:01:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-) cd: Yet it would seem that these children on this site could teach you many things-Where has you MSS gotten you.You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.Yet the saved have the Holy Spirit teaching them how to avoid sin. This is pre-bible 101 stuff John.I feel sorry for the poor little weak Christians that don't know any better that that.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF G
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Not at all. Both are sinners. But there is a big difference between the two. jd-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:04:59 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 12:01:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I have never said this:You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin. cd: You said "both are sinners"-that is saying there is no difference.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 11:01:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-) cd: Yet it would seem that these children on this site could teach you many things-Where has you MSS gotten you.You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.Yet the saved have the Holy Spirit teaching them how to avoid sin. This is pre-bible 101 stuff John.I feel sorry for the poor little weak Christians that don't know any better that that.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing i
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Do you see that you argue for not knowing while using a example you believe illustrates that you do, in fact, know?
If we do not know, the correct answer to your final question would be "yes, I could make that argument."
But, back to the 10:14 question -- I do not think it fair to illustrate a question about an action with a comment about an emotion. Plug in a couple of definitions and see what you get. I am being happy ( I am experiencing joy and pleasure) compared to "I am being made holy."
Do you believe that "sanctification" implies becoming something that was not previously the case, in our case? "Made or make" is an integral aspect of "set apart, holy." Separate one from the other and you do not have the definition of "sanctification." In the biblical message, we are set apart in the sense that we made holy. As I see it, the present tense AND the passive voice demand the reading "being made holy.' I am not trying to ague this into the ground -- but do you see my point?
John.
-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:26:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
If Bill's happiness were transitory, then you would be right, but it is possible that his happiness is found in eternal life,and if that were so, then it would not betransitory. The point is that we do not know from the statement whether his happiness is complete or not.
Suppose I said, "Jesus is happy." Would you make the same argument, that His happiness isincomplete?
Peace be with you.David Miller.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
myth ("Bill is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present tense'happiness' is incomplete)
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:|| Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete action. "Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his happiness.||
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I introduced the ABSURD possibility that you were being "just plain stupid"
in a particular conclusion. The point being that the OTHER possibility
mentioned was the most likely one to be true.Context is important,
but if you want to rip it out of context and twist it to your own destruction,
you have that right.
Peace be with you.David Miller.
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:34
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor
DM has introduced the possiblity that I am "just plain stupid." And
Kevin has used the word "fool" many times. I didn't bother reading your
second paragraph.
jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:32:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor
You are wrong Bill. I don't think along these
lines and since ppl on TT are all professing believers
(whether or not I think they act/talk like it)
I wonder why any one here wouldcategorize
anotheras an
idiot/fool in light of
Jesus' words about calling a brother 'raca' (or
fool).
As for you, from my perspective every time we get to
discussing anything serious, it does not take
long forLance to
step up to the plate and put some kind of a 'mojo' on you and then you retreat
back into silenceRush
Limbaughquite obviouslydoes
not have the mind of
Christ, so I don't
pay him any mind; he is not a disciple of the same
Master.
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I am thinking about what you said in regards to
Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our
conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my
mouth and remove all doubt :) I think this time I'll remain silent and
only thought a fool. Bill
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah. Now I see. Why the
race? Well, i guess I should defer to
Bill, although I think I understood the point.
From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com
Do you presume to have finished the race, while
waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?
and it got ahearty laugh out of my
otherwise demonical countenance.
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RACE. What is that
about?how do you
get a race outthis? I
remain confused. -Original
Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisor
I know what you are commenting on JD;
However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing
at all to do with Hebrews 10:14
where this thread began. Bill
hasgone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to
do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews
10:14. The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice
against the once for
all sacrifice of Christ. Now how do you get a race
outthis? You are lost because you
are off on the same
tangent as Bill. judyt
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry , Judy, you have lost me entirely. I am
committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing
what ?? This is a great question: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for
the likes of Paul to catch up?and it got
ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical
countenance.
From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com
Your drift is incomprehensible JD
and there is no "death blow" because FYI
Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ...
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie:
"Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come
to do Your will, O God" He takes away
the first that He may establish the second. By
that will we have been sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all"
So where is this race..
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not laughting at you , David, but I am
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
:-)-Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:36:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I introduced the ABSURD possibility that you were being "just plain stupid" in a particular conclusion. The point being that the OTHER possibility mentioned was the most likely one to be true.Context is important, but if you want to rip it out of context and twist it to your own destruction, you have that right. Peace be with you.David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor DM has introduced the possiblity that I am "just plain stupid." And Kevin has used the word "fool" many times. I didn't bother reading your second paragraph. jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:32:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You are wrong Bill. I don't think along these lines and since ppl on TT are all professing believers (whether or not I think they act/talk like it) I wonder why any one here wouldcategorize anotheras an idiot/fool in light of Jesus' words about calling a brother 'raca' (or fool). As for you, from my perspective every time we get to discussing anything serious, it does not take long forLance to step up to the plate and put some kind of a 'mojo' on you and then you retreat back into silenceRush Limbaughquite obviouslydoes not have the mind of Christ, so I don't pay him any mind; he is not a disciple of the same Master. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am thinking about what you said in regards to Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my mouth and remove all doubt :) I think this time I'll remain silent and only thought a fool. Bill From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah. Now I see. Why the race? Well, i guess I should defer to Bill, although I think I understood the point. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RACE. What is that about?how do you get a race outthis? I remain confused. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor I know what you are commenting on JD; However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 where this thread began. Bill hasgone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14. The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice against the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Now how do you get a race outthis? You are lost because you are off on the same tangent as Bill. judyt On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry , Judy, you have lost me entirely. I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what ?? This is a great question: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com Your drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave... Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come to do Your will, O God" He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" So where is this race.. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not laughting at you , David, but I am laughing at the quetion !!! Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow if you get my drift. :-) jd-Original Message-From: Taylor wmtaylor@plains.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You highlight the problemwith leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? Bill - Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [Tru
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Lance why are you always so worried about what others think about you?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have every confidence that neither David Miller nor Bill Taylor thought the two of you 'ignorant'. Their character (read sanctification) wouldn't permit such a thought.However, after reading this...welln, they still wouldn't!- Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 25, 2005 08:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorcd: Judy I think we are being called ignorant by Miller,Bill.and others will add their remarks to show their superiority. Yet for a week now they could no come to any conclusion on the meaning of one word in the Bible-Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. Imagine what would happen if these superior Genius' decide to interpreted the entire bible-all of us ignorant people would be in heaven-with the other ignorant people-before they could complete one book of the bible.I thank God that he had pity on us poor dumb humans else our IQs would prevent us from ever obtaining salvation-and then only the wise superior intellectuals would make it. Yet have you noticed how must that same group lacks in understanding-They don't even know to keep God's commandments and see no difference in the behavior of the saved and the lost-they believe we all are ongoing sinful people. They often run around speaking in tongues that no one ca n understand to show how holy they are while no one can figure on the meaning of their words-Maybe they are repeating the answer to the present passive voice question in a heavenly language and don't know it. So don't feel bad God love stupid people too-we will just have to make use with the little intellect we have:-) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 2:10:10 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorOn Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:07:01 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I don't think they were misled by the passage. I think they perceived that you do not perceive the completed aspect of sanctification, and you were trying to use your Greek exegesis skills to make this passage prove your point.This is correct; the scriptures are spiritually discerned rather than Gk exegetically manipulated.You have to understand, John, that many on this list do not have the educational background to talk on your level about these matters. We really should not run roughshod over them. We need to do the translating for them.Wait a minute David, this really troubles me. Why pump JD up about his great learning when this is his problem? You've mentioned in the past that you think I am against education. Not so when it comes to a dentist or doctor who is going to work on me. I want them to have done their homework. However this is IMO totally misplaced in the body of Christ and from my experience it has caused no end ofproblems. All education can do is give one a historical background, it can never impart spiritual understanding - Deans questionaire on Calvin is a good example of how that works sincewe are still reaping what he sowed into the body of Christ and it's fruit is not good.I found some of the conversation interesting, because Judy often has repeated her viewpoint that we are all in the process of being sanctified. My belief David is that there is a triune aspect to both salvation and sanctification ie: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, same forsanctification; andI saw the verse in question (Heb 10:14) as referring to Heb 10:10 and theonce for all aspect. So all we did on that thread is what 2 Tim 2:14 warns us not to do which is to "strive about words to no profit"I notice it because from my perspective, she often fails to apprehend the completeness of sanctification that already has taken place for some believers (those who embrace Christian perfection and sanctification). Am I missing something David, are theresome who are "locked in" to Christian perfection and sanctification and not others? This is reminiscent of Calvin's select of the elect. 1 Thess 5:23 speaks of our whole "spirit, soul, and body" being preserved blameless and for one believe everyone's mind needs renewing from the start.Yet in this matter, she fought tooth and nail against the concept. You shook your head in disbelief, but I think there is valid reason why she took that position. I know I just lost you... sorry. I'm tired and must sign off now. God bless.JD's claim that Kevin and I prove his point is ironic since he and Bill proved the point made earlier about the danger of the newer translations where men feel free to correct God's Word in light of the "supposedly" newer Greek
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
John wrote: Do you see that you argue for not knowing while using a example you believe illustrates that you do, in fact, know? I do in fact know. My argument is not that I don't know or that none of us know, but rather that based upon what is written in that one verse, we don't know. My point is about proper exegesis. Do you understand what I am saying? John wrote: But, back to the 10:14 question -- I do not think it fair to illustrate a question about an action with a comment about an emotion. Plug in a couple of definitions and see what you get. I am being happy ( I am experiencing joy and pleasure) compared to I am being made holy. Well, you do have a good point here. An emotion is different than sanctification, so I concede that my analogy was poor in this regard. Let's go back to the word sanctified. Let's talk about Jesus at age 12. Jesus is sanctified. Should it be this, or should it be, Jesus is being sanctified? Would you agree with Gary that Christ's sanctification is incomplete and transitory? John wrote: Do you believe that sanctification implies becoming something that was not previously the case, in our case? Yes. John wrote: Made or make is an integral aspect of set apart, holy. Separate one from the other and you do not have the definition of sanctification. I'm not in complete agreement with this. Sanctification is not a process per se, but there is a state of being sanctified once one is sanctified. :-) John wrote: In the biblical message, we are set apart in the sense that we made holy. As I see it, the present tense AND the passive voice demand the reading being made holy.' I think the problem here is being dogmatic about how many first year text books define the present tense. Most of the instruction for first year students involves trying to help them understand the aorist tense, a tense which we do not have in English. To accomplish this, teachers generally try to get students to understand the type of action defined by the aorist tense, as opposed to the present tense. So the teaching goes along the lines of how the aorist tense describes action that is simple and punctiliar, as opposed to the present tense, which defines the action as continuous and repeated. This is simply a guideline for general approach for the beginning student. As students become more familiar with Greek and read it on their own, it does not take long for them to find examples where this rule does not hold true. The truth is that there is a broad range of semantic meaning for any particular syntax that one might consider. While sometimes a knowledge of Greek helps us get confirmation or refutation of a particular idea, in many cases it does not. Case in point, in this particular situation, I think you and Bill Taylor are over-emphasizing certain basic rules of Greek interpretation, trying to make an air tight case where there is none. This is one of those situations where a little knowledge of Greek can be more dangerous than no knowledge of Greek. Now going back to your translation here, being made holy. You have introduced a new verb which does not exist in the Greek. I'm talking about your insertion of the word made. It is one thing for you to be wanting to force the view that present tense always indicates continuous, repeated action. It is quite another to insist on adding a new verb. Who else do you know who translates it this way except you? The Bible in Basic English actually add the word made too, but they omit the word being so it does not read like yours. Some other translations for your consideration: Heb 10:14 (ALT) For by one offering He has perfected for all time the ones being sanctified. (ASV) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (BBE) Because by one offering he has made complete for ever those who are made holy. (Bishops) For with one offeryng hath he made perfite for euer them that are sanctified. (CEV) By his one sacrifice he has forever set free from sin the people he brings to God. (DRB) For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (EMTV) For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (ESV) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (GB) For with one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified. (Geneva) For with one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified. (GNB) With one sacrifice, then, he has made perfect forever those who are purified from sin. (GW) With one sacrifice he accomplished the work of setting them apart for God forever. (HCSB) For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. (HNV) For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (ISV) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (KJV) For by
RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
The bible declares Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.Jesus was our ultimate example.When certain men came to him to questionDeut 25:5,6: Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Jesus did not say (mayI quote) A much better translation would be as Bill suggested, IMO He did not say the 'originals say' He did not say You fools didn't you notice the Past Participle!He said: And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?Where did Jesus ever question the authority, availabilityor the translation of the scriptures? ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amazing those that argue against JD, always just end up proving his point in his OWN mind. J From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:58 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No it does not Perhaps this is true in your case. I am not sure you understand the problem, but I think you do. Others, clearly, do not and that is my point. The average reader will see this as a completed action. Kevin and Judy have made such arguments and prove my point. IN THAT REGARD, this is a poor translation of the text. A much better translation would be as Bill suggested, IMO. Jd -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:54:48 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor JD wrote: The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case. No it does not. The translation is present passive. You keep trying to portray falsely that it is past tense. Nothing in this translation indicates whether our sanctification is completed oris still ongoing. It only indicates that we are sanctified at the present time.Peace.David Miller. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:42 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:06:28 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJD wrote: I think Bill's point (correct me if I am wrong, Bill) is that the KJ translation gives us a past tense translation of a present tense participle. There is no good reason for doing such and in that context, it is a "mistake." I did not understand Bill this way, but if that is what he is saying, hewould be wrong. The phrase "are sanctified" is not past tense. The syntax of "sanctified" looks like a past tense construction, but it is simply a participle construction of the verb "sanctify" that looks the same as the past tense form of the verb. The tense of the verb is present tense, as indicated by the word "are." If it were past tense, the phrase would be "were sanctified" not "are sanctified." The translation presents the reader with a completed task when that is not the case. JD wrote: In the English, this past tense translation circumvents ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as ongoing event by another in our lives. It would only be your own personal reading of "are sanctified" that would circumvent ENTIRELY the impact of sanctification as an ongoing event. The phrase is present tense, and hence it does not circumvent anything of the sort. Your confusion in the first paragraph would seem to prove my point. 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. Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
More Barfh The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text This is not the belief as most christians who simply believe obeythe word of God it is Barthian in as much as he has a "Personal Encouter" with the text. The Bible is only God's Word to the extent that God causes it to be his Word, to the extent that he speaks through it. The texts are authoritative not in virtue of any inherent property they may have, such as being inerrant or inspired, but by virtue of a function they fill in the life of the Christian community.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Bill wrote: You highlight the problem with leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; I have not left off the present passive aspect. In English, we don't conjugate the participle this way, but
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
We know you don't read most of the posts, it is obvious. On top of it all you have a vivid imagination to say the least.The Bible uses the word Fool Liar too.I do not think idiot is in there though.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:DM has introduced the possiblity that I am "just plain stupid." And Kevin has used the word "fool" many times. I didn't bother reading your second paragraph. jd-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:32:42 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou are wrong Bill. I don't think along these lines and since ppl on TT are all professing believers (whether or not I think they act/talk like it) I wonder why any one here wouldcategorize anotheras an idiot/fool in light of Jesus' words about calling a brother 'raca' (or fool).As for you, from my perspective every time we get to discussing anything serious, it does not take long forLance to step up to the plate and put some kind of a 'mojo' on you and then you retreat back into silenceRush Limbaughquite obviouslydoes not have the mind of Christ, so I don't pay him any mind; he is not a disciple of the same Master.On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:33:03 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I am thinking about what you said in regards to Rush. There's little doubt about whom Judy considers the "idiot" in our conversations. And so it's always a question of whether I want to open my mouth and remove all doubt :) I think this time I'll remain silent and only thought a fool. BillFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah. Now I see. Why the race? Well, i guess I should defer to Bill, although I think I understood the point. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comDo you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up? and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:34:16 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:RACE. What is that about?how do you get a race outthis? I remain confused. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:05:16 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorI know what you are commenting on JD; However, Bill's statement is way out there someplace and has nothing at all to do with Hebrews 10:14 where this thread began. Bill hasgone from Greek verbs to some race none of which have anything to do with 'being sanctified' as per Hebrews 10:14. The 10th Chapter of Hebrews juxtaposes animal sacrifice against the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Now how do you get a race outthis? You are lost because you are off on the same tangent as Bill. judytOn Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:56:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Sorry , Judy, you have lost me entirely. I am committing on Bill's statement below and you are doing what ?? This is a great question: Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?and it got ahearty laugh out of my otherwise demonical countenance. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comYour drift is incomprehensible JD and there is no "death blow" because FYI Hebrews 10:14 does not refer to any race ... Oh what a tangled web we weave...Vs.14 here relates to Hebrews 10:9,10 ie: "Then He (Jesus) said "Behold I have come to do Your will, O God" He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all"So where is this race..On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:29:00 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Not laughting at you , David, but I am laughing at the quetion !!! Out of compassion and reason comes the death blow if you get my drift. :-)jd-Original Message-From: Taylor wmtaylor@plains.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:19:14 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou highlight the problemwith leaving off the present passive aspect of this participle, David; hence loosing track of the unfinished- or incompleteness of it. Do you presume to have finished the race, while waiting for the likes of Paul to catch up?Bill- Original Message - From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorBill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctificationwhich is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicate
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin The problem is without the POWER of God in our lives it is impossible. To as many as recieved him to them gave he power to become the sons of God.Will power, new years resolutions, turning over a new leaf, reformationwon't do it. Only by Repentance the Power of a resurrected life can we overcome the Old man. Right JD?Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin when Jesus died so that we could separate ourselves from sin and choose toidentify and walk in the gift ofHis righteousness. Thisseparationis known as "sanctification" Under the Old Covenant theydid it ritually as Moses regularly called the congregation to sanctify themselves We arecalled to do this in it's entirety - that is to put off sin and put on Christ The importance of this is shown in how God judgedMoses, forbidding him toenter the land of promisebecause of disobedience (in striking the rock when told to speak to it) he failed to 'sanctify the Lord in his heart' before the peopleOn Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:01:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:We all pretty much know what this word means -- generally speaking, it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness. Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man,Eph4:20-24, that we continue to harbor or possess sin I Jo 1:8, that none is righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already "saved") Ro 3:10, thatour sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin Ro 3:23, that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good), that the personal struggle betweenflesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25 -- there is simply no reasonto argue that our sanctification isan uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14. Do you see some "evil" in this opinion? Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his housewas complete when, looking back in time, it clearly was not. If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs, if he is aware of the failings of the home, he will not think it is a completed task. Jd From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netcd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside of God's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional roomis added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place. JD: David -- I do not understand your logic here. If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing - how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time, completed?"I am being made a better person" presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me. Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?" Jd From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.orgBill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctificationwhich is not yet complete.How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text.Peace be with you. David Miller.From: Taylor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit.Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either. Bill From: Kevin Deegan The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com wrote: I don't speculate on all that Bill because in my understanding the active part of sanctificationrequires the cooperation of the one being sanctified; the kind of cooperation an unbeliever would be unable to give.On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:11:28 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes:That's fine, Judy, but who in this discussion has argued that to
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Will power, new years resolutions, turning over a new leaf, reformationwon't do it. Only by Repentance the Power of a resurrected life can we overcome the Old man. Right JD? Absolutely. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:30:48 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin The problem is without the POWER of God in our lives it is impossible. To as many as recieved him to them gave he power to become the sons of God. Will power, new years resolutions, turning over a new leaf, reformationwon't do it. Only by Repentance the Power of a resurrected life can we overcome the Old man. Right JD? Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How sad JD that you so completely identify with sin when Jesus died so that we could separate ourselves from sin and choose toidentify and walk in the gift ofHis righteousness. Thisseparationis known as "sanctification" Under the Old Covenant theydid it ritually as Moses regularly called the congregation to sanctify themselves We arecalled to do this in it's entirety - that is to put off sin and put on Christ The importance of this is shown in how God judgedMoses, forbidding him toenter the land of promisebecause of disobedience (in striking the rock when told to speak to it) he failed to 'sanctify the Lord in his heart' before the people On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:01:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We all pretty much know what this word means -- generally speaking, it is a setting apart as a result of an increased holiness. Because of a multitude of passges expressing the thought that we remain tied to our old man,Eph4:20-24, that we continue to harbor or possess sin I Jo 1:8, that none is righteous (a cinfirmation to those who are already "saved") Ro 3:10, thatour sepaation from God's glory is stated in the context of sin Ro 3:23, that there is none good but the Father, that we are evil (yet know how to do good), that the personal struggle betweenflesh and the Spirit is a continuing circumstance (Rom 7:14-25 -- there is simply no reasonto argue that our sanctification isan uncompleted task in view of Heb 10:14. Do you see some "evil" in this opinion? Your house illustration has appeal only because the home owner in your illustration thinks his housewas complete when, looking back in time, it clearly was not. If the home owner views his home as something that does not yet meet his needs, if he is aware of the failings of the home, he will not think it is a completed task. Jd From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netcd: From the prospective of a home builder I can relate to this diagram of salvation and as most of the parables were directed toward the common man who builds (and hid from those wise in their own eyes) this would not be acting outside of God's biblical perimeters. If I one builds a house with great care making every cut and load bearing wall to its proper standards then when this house is finished it is complete/or perfect by those standards-as Christ has completed His house (ie The Church). Yet one can also allow for that house to receive additional room for future use( as the Family grows) and as each additional roomis added one can still call that same house complete/perfect for its purpose and use.Consider these terms of completeness and the rest falls into place. JD: David -- I do not understand your logic here. If you admit that our sanctification is ongoing - how could you possibly argue that it is, at the same time, completed?"I am being made a better person" presents an action that is not completed and that appears to to be obvious, to me. Why is this not the case with "being sanctified?" Jd From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] lory.org Bill wrote: Per this verse, it is our sanctificationwhich is not yet complete. How do you read this into the text? Nothing in this passage indicates that our present sanctification is somehow incomplete. Granted, our sanctification may be ongoing, but to argue that a present tense indicates incompleteness is going beyond what is indicated by this text. Peace be with you. David Miller. From: Taylor Well actually, "by one offering" is a prepositional phrase and not the subject of the sentence. The third person singular aspect of teteleioken conveys the subject of the sentence: "he"; but I don't expect you to agree with that, and I certainly don't expect you to be able to understandit. Nevertheless, nothing I have said should lead you to the conclusion that I believe the one offering is not complete. Per this verse, it is our sanctification which is not yet complete. But I don't expect you to understand that either. Bill From: Kevin Deegan The subject of the sentence 10:14 is the ONE OFFERING so Bill is saying it is "Not yet Complete"Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@jun
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Chapter verse?Or so say you? That settles it then!Hey if it is good enuff for JD, then its gotta be good enuff for you![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to the intent of wanting truth-the proud will never see itanyway. [Original Message] From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Date: 11/24/2005 6:40:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I am supposed to be at the shop. But the Texas game istoo big a temptation. This is a good post and I want to continue the thread up until the time we start in on each other :-) And I am praying for your ability to take advantage of the doors that seem to be opening for you at the university.Once past the rebuking part, you are certainly qualified to talk their talk. A great opportunity for you and the Lord. Jd -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:51:39 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor John wrote: Do you see that you argue for not knowing while using a example you believe illustrates that you do, in fact, know? I do in fact know. My argument is not that I don't know or that none of us know, but rather that based upon what is written in that one verse, we don't know. My point is about proper exegesis. Do you understand what I am saying? John wrote: But, back to the 10:14 question -- I do not think it fair to illustrate a question about an action with a comment about an emotion. Plug in a couple of definitions and see what you get. I am being happy ( I am experiencing joy and pleasure) compared to "I am being made holy." Well, you do have a good point here. An emotion is different than sanctification, so I concede that my analogy was poor in this regard. Let's go back to the word "sanctified." Let's talk about Jesus at age 12. "Jesus is sanctified." Should it be this, or should it be, "Jesus is being sanctified"? Would you agree with Gary that Christ's sanctification is incomplete and transitory? John wrote: Do you believe that "sanctification" implies becoming something that was not previously the case, in our case? Yes. John wrote: "Made or make" is an integral aspect of "set apart, holy." Separate one from the other and you do not have the definition of "sanctification." I'm not in complete agreement with this. Sanctification is not a process per se, but there is a state of being sanctified once one is sanctified. :-) John wrote: In the biblical message, we are set apart in the sense that we made holy. As I see it, the present tense AND the passive voice demand the reading "being made holy.' I think the problem here is being dogmatic about how many first year text books define the present tense. Most of the instruction for first year students involves trying to help them understand the aorist tense, a tense which we do not have in English. To accomplish this, teachers generally try to get students to understand the type of action defined by the aorist tense, as opposed to the present tense. So the teaching goes along the lines of how the aorist tense describes action that is simple and punctiliar, as opposed to the present tense, which defines the action as continuous and repeated. This is simply a guideline for general approach for the beginning student. As students become more familiar with Greek and read it on their own, it does not take long for them to find examples where this rule does not hold true. The truth is that there is a broad range of semantic meaning for any particular syntax that one might consider. While sometimes a knowledge of Greek helps us get confirmation or refutation of a particular idea, in many cases it does not. Case in point, in this particular situation, I think you and Bill Taylor are over-emphasizing certain basic rules of Greek interpretation, trying to make an air tight case where there is none. This is one of those situations where a little knowledge of Greek can be more dangerous than no knowledge of Greek. Now going back to your translation here, "being made holy." You have introduced a new verb which does not exist in the Greek. I'm talking about your insertion of the word "made." It is one thing for you to be wanting to force the view that present tense always indicates continuous, repeated action. It is quite another to insist on adding a new verb. Who else do you know who translates it this way except you? The Bible in Basic English actually add the word "made" too, but they omit the word "being" so it does not read like yours. Some other translations for your consideration: Heb 10:14 (ALT) For by one offering He has perfected for all time the ones being sanctified. (ASV) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (BBE) Because by one offering he has made complete for ever those who are made holy. (Bishops) For with one offeryng hath he made perfite for euer them that are sanctified. (CEV) By his one sacrifice he has forever set free from sin the people he brings to God. (DRB) For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (EMTV) For by one offering He has perfected forever those
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
So where is your chapter and versepushing the KJV onto everyone and tossing the greek MSS out the window. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:40:46 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Chapter verse? Or so say you? That settles it then! Hey if it is good enuff for JD, then its gotta be good enuff for you![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite. The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used. But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of Gods words instructone to do-Then live by that-for you will be judged by that standard- if theheart is true to th
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
man-made translationWhat a great illustration of FAITH versus Doubt!Believers see through the eyes of FAITH.Unbelievers and Modernists see through the natural, w/o faith. Besides if we can not come to agreement on what it really says, whether it is perfect, or even if we know where it might be available (originals),are we obliged to obey? Makes for a good excuse.Knowing as we do, thatwithout faith it is impossible to please God, we see the Word of God not as "man made" but as The HOLY Inerant Word from God Preserved for man that Man may DO it .And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do themIf thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GODFor this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld,
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
so why such vehement opposition from your corner?Critical naturalism modernism from which NATURALLY flow Infidelity Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.net wrote: cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children-Point-What do the teachings of God
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Just think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what we prefer; let us li
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:52:35 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor man-made translation What a great illustration of FAITH versus Doubt! Believers see through the eyes of FAITH. Unbelievers and Modernists see through the natural, w/o faith. Besides if we can not come to agreement on what it really says, whether it is perfect, or even if we know where it might be available (originals),are we obliged to obey? Makes for a good excuse. Knowing as we do, thatwithout faith it is impossible to please God, we see the Word of God not as "man made" but as The HOLY Inerant Word from God Preserved for man that Man may DO it . And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13). So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
cd: You said "both are sinners"-that is saying there is no difference.It depends of what the definition of "are" is!Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 12:01:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorI have never said this:You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.cd: You said "both are sinners"-that is saying there is no difference.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:17 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 11:01:40 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorIt is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)cd: Yet it would seem that these children on this site could teach you many things-Where has you MSS gotten you.You have said-There is no difference between the saved and the lost regarding sin.Yet the saved have the Holy Spirit teaching them how to avoid sin. This is pre-bible 101 stuff John.I feel sorry for the poor little weak Christians that don't know any better that that.-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Genesis 49), Israel OUT of Egypt (Exodus 15), and Joseph's bones OUT of Egypt (Exodus 13).So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate (though, of course, there is no final, absolute authority for determining truth and error: it is a matter of "preference") are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although not quite.The most inaccurate translations were those that brought about the German Reformation (Luther, Zwingli, Boehier, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide missionary movement of the English-speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitefleld, Wesley, and Chapman used.But we can "tolerate these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, teach, preach. or handle, the whole thing is a
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Just think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Then childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner? On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to children The CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God. Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled. Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error. There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error. However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and ph
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Chapter 30 Verse 5 Book Proverbs Every word of God is purePS 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.I do not toss the greek out, just the obviously CORRUPTED Alexandrian greek text. The ones with deletions insertions corrections erasures. One only needs 0to look on their face to SEE they have been tampered with. No GREEK NEEDED for that.I do not accept checks with TEN different handwritings and crossed out words/numbers. Such a check is DISQUALFIED! Why should I use such MSS? Why would God use such MSS? He could not keep them pure? He needed some heretics to restore them by collating all the MSS endlessly arguing what isthe real intent?This all streches credulity to the breaking point! Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence, which disagrees within itself, thus it is a disqualified witness again. Faith in the KJV is based on its unfailing performance for 400 years, others come and others go!Besides the KJV fits the scripture PS 12"PURIFIED Seven times" 1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. 1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:So where is your chapter and versepushing the KJV onto everyone and tossing the greek MSS out the window. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:40:46 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorChapter verse?Or so say you? That settles it then!Hey if it is good enuff for JD, then its gotta be good enuff for you![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
FAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:52:35 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorman-made translation What a great illustration of FAITH versus Doubt!Believers see through the eyes of FAITH.Unbelievers and Modernists see through the natural, w/o faith. Besides if we can not come to agreement on what it really says, whether it is perfect, or even if we know where it might be available (originals),are we obliged to obey? Makes for a good excuse.Knowing as we do, thatwithout faith it is impossible to please God, we see the Word of God not as "man made" but as The HOLY Inerant Word from God Preserved for man that Man may DO it .And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GODFor this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.Since God is a Spirit, there is no final authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled.Since all books are material, there is no book on this earth that is the final and absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong: what constitutes truth and what constitutes error.There WAS a series of writings one time ( called the Originals)which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.However, this series of writings was lost, and the God who inspired them was unable to preserve their content through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-52), and where the word 'Christian originated (Acts 11:26).So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called His Son OUT of Egypt (Matthew 2), Jacob OUT of Egypt (Ge
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV?DUH!1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. 1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
As we see again you are ALL about DOUBT! "yea hath God said"? ?Where is The Infalible Word of God today JD? Does not exist according to JD.Perhaps you think by asking questions that would take a large amount of documentation, you will accomplish one of two tasks? 1) I will be to busy to assemble such documentation and you will seem as a victor in your own mind. 2) The large amount of documentation is not going to be viewed and certainly not studied out like a good Berean. A christian must STUDY to be approved yet that is not popular in todays busy world. So there is a hope that even if I answer some may not read. As a side protection throw about 10 questions of such volume out at one time that is sure to do the trick!And yes the REVISORS Westcott Hort were Occultists Heretics [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:10:55 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor cd: This is really scary in leu of level of debate on the Greek and Englishlanguages. The Bible say a child can understand the Gospel-yet side B ofthis room are concerned about the present tense and passive voices of adead language to explain the Gospel and the brethren have to go there tohelp them understand-No wonder Jesus marveled that God hid it from the wiseand gave it to childrenThe CREED of the Alexandrian Cult There is no final authority but God.S
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version?If this is your measure for truth, the go ahead throw out your new versions because they are the ones that come forth out of the Corrupt MSS that contained the Apocrypha! The KJV Greek TEXTUS RECEPTUSdoes NOT contain the Apocrypha. BUT The oldest best GREEK CODEX used for the new versions DOES CONTAIN the Apocrypha.The questionssome of youcome up with are unbelievable I must assume you are intent on setting up a Straw man attack since your ACCUSATIONS actually apply to the new versions rather than the KJV. You then attack the KJV based on the false inaplicable ACCUSATIONS. Of course it is possible that you have been duped and are horribly ignorant of the facts. These are the only 2 choices, ignorant or dishonest. Which is it?The Apocryphacame to us in Greek, as well as Latin but not in Scriptural Hebrew. They aredeuterocanonical, or second level and were included in the KJVfor historical reason - NOT AS Scripture.Everyone knows they were not accepted as scripture as you imply In fact the KJV Translators gave SEVEN REASONS for NOT including it as scripture! The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.Who would be so foolish to intersperse Greek Latin text into the OT which came to us in Hebrew? If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction or inteligence of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the HEBREW Old Testament thus giving it authority AS Scripture. The Apocrypha is not part of the KJV bible anymore than the bible dictionary is, in the back of your bible! But it is part of the source documents for the New Versions![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I re
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
NIV has 64,098 less words than the KJV, anything important? "That which for nearly 1500 years was imposed on Christiandom as a book, of which every word was written under the direct supervision of the Holy Ghost: of which not one sylable nor a coma could be changed without sacrilege, is now being translated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, in some cases of entire chapters" Occultist M Blavatsky ISIS Unveiled Volume 2, Theosophical Publishing pp 125, 252. NEW BIBLE ED's SIT IN JUDGEMENT OF GOD's WORD (Who is the Authority?) "Certain verses that...have traditionally been thought have been part of Holy Writ, were in the judgement of the translators not present..." The NIV:The Making of a Contemporary Translation ED. Kenneth L. Barker, 1986 page 37 NEW BIBLE EDITORS ARE HERETICS "This shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox protestants areas, namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...in that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior." Edwin Palmer (Chief Editor NIV) The Holy Spirit 1974 p 83 THE IDEA IS TO ADULTERATE THE THEOLOGY "The changes thus far...are in the right directions...and should contain the germs of a new theology." (NASB editor) The Life of Schaff pp 427-428 "Certain words have gathered significance through the years and to change them might be to change doctrine...do the changes in meaning come from new evidence or simply new theology" Louis Foster, (NIV and NKJV committees) Selecting a Translation of the Bible pp 21, 76. "The collusion is so low key that no one notices" M Ferguson The Aquarian Conspiracy (New Age). "The Sacred Text has none to fear so much as those who feel rather than think" Dean John Burgon, The Revision Revised, page 109[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification --
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Where was God's word before 1611? How about; Wyclif's Bible 1384Tyndale 1535Coverdale's Bible 1535Great Bible Geneva Bible Bishops' Bible How About - Older versions:Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD Arabic, Persian, and Armenian versions Old Latin version 150 AD Other old Translations carried around the world, by missionaries preachers. Extant Greek manuscripts The Old Testament preserved by the Jews. Romans 3:2 unto them were committed the oracles of God. The Jewish cannon is devided into Law, prophets, psalms or Torah, Nebiim, Kethubhim.Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.The Jewish cannon starts with Blood of Abel, ends with the blood of Zacharias (Gen to Chronicles - Jewish order of books)Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.This matches the different order of books in the Jewish cannon, but they are the same 39 books as the KJV (NO APOCRYPHAL BOOKS)!!! It is well known that the Jews took religious and meticulous care in their transcription.The scribes were very diligent and if but a single page was marred the whole was to be cast upon the scrap heap.John Owen said "The Jews have a common saying among them - that to alter one letter of the Law,is no less sin than to set the whole World on fire, and shall we think that in writing it they took no more care than a man would do in writing out Aristotle or Plato" Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures Vol. XVI, P. 356 The naturalist Modernistic critics would be wise to study this saying! Rabbi Moses, Tractatus de Libro Legis,chapter X. Lists 20 things that profane a copy. One of them is...If but one letter be wanting; and another, If but one letter be redundant...Owens said "Jewish scribes and copyists would never have dared to insert vowels not in the originals or ancient copies thereof!" Not so whoever messed with Aleph B! They disfigured its face.Compare the statements of the scribes reverence and atitude see if they square with the content and character of the grossly misfigured and CORRUPT Aleph B Mss. http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html Now I leave you with a question. What about those before the Time of Moses who gave us the Pentatuech? Where was God's word? Is God able to get his word to the pygmy in the farthest reaches?Hint:Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.What scripture existed during Abrahams time?Guess it depends on if you are a Bible believer or a Bible Doubter!If you believe there is a God who created the universe and the complexities of Life, but do not think God can get His word to man, or preserve His word in a book without error, (YE OLDE BIBLE is just written by men argumente) You need your head examined!Matthew 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? How BIG is your God?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither d
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.(Would your bank accept a check with 10 different signatures?) One very curious note is found on page 1512 it seems to complain about a change to the text of Hebrews 1:3 "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" The critic Phillip Mauro said "From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose." "It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that "the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough" (N.T. Part ii p.2). Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton, whereby a clause is as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the N.T., though the defect is often supplied by a more recent hand." (A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament by F.H. Scrivener Page 15 Introduction)These TWO Mss. are at varience with one another, they disagree amongst themselves over 2000 times in the gospels alone!The Word of God disqualifies this kind of disagreeing witnesses Mark 14:55 -59 It is more like Satans witnesses A good example of the corruption of the Bible CORRECTORS is Mark 16 where both Vaticanus Sinaiticus leave out the last 12 verses. There are 620 extant Mss. that contain this section Mark 16. NO OTHER Mss. leave this out! The evidence is 618 to 2 for the section telling about the ressurection of Jesus. Yet, these 2 corruptions that are called the "Oldest Best Manuscripts" end with Jesus in the grave the disciples Fearing. In defiance of the combined 618 witnesses we are to put our trust in 2 horribly misfigured Mss. "covered all over with blots" as Burgeon has stated. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-----Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:4
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out? I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one HB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all JUDE 1:1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ Seems they are all present tense must be a KJV thingy. (emphasis my own) Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in thepresent tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to acompleted past with lingering effects. Would you mind venturing a guess as to which one it is? David claims thatthis type ofKJV shorthand is not a problem;he can tell by context when a perfect tense is being implied. Perhaps he can. What big deal is that? He's studied the Greek. My question to you is, why can't you tell the difference? Why isn't Kevin able to tell which one of these is in the present tense, and why can't he tell that the other five are perfects? He's got God'sWord and Holy Spirit to guide him. Izzy doesn't know how right she is: "If only the scribes and Pharisees can understand God's Word, and we must depend upon their interpretations, we are in big trouble. Fortunately this is not the case." She's right: there are plenty ofpeople who can help you, if you will but let them. Your recommendation "is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek." Well tell me then, with an understanding like that, which of Kevin's present tenses is actually a present tense?Did you agreewith him that this "is exactly the road we travel on when we enter into the greek game. Endless arguments about the sense of 'being' versus the nuaances of 'having been'"?If you did, then get in the race: I challenge any of you to tell me the answer without firstgoing to the Greek. Tell me, Kevin, are you willing to"make your stand, withoutany scripture to back up your Philosophy"? If not, thenpunch inthe Greekand notice the tense results. Judy claimed that I and my "Gk Dictionary cohorts are putting [ourselves] into a very definite doctrinalcorner
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Your argument falls on deaf ears. The ears ofthe vast majority of Greek scholars, who totally disagree with you. What makes your Private Interpretation better than theirs? Becuase it is yours?Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out?I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification.And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our'sFor both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of oneHB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for allJUDE 1:1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ Seems they are all present tense must be a KJV thingy. (emphasis my own) Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in thepresent tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to acompleted past with lingering effects. Would you mind venturing a guess as to which one it is?David claims thatthis type ofKJV shorthand is not a problem;he can tell by context when a perfect tense is being implied. Perhaps he can. What big deal is that? He's studied the Greek. My question to you is, why can't you tell the difference? Why isn't Kevin able to tell which one of these is in the present tense, and why can't he tell that the other five are perfects? He's got God'sWord and Holy Spirit to guide him. Izzy doesn't know how right she is: "If only the scribes and Pharisees can understand God's Word, and we must depend upon their interpretations, we are in big trouble. Fortunately this is not the case." She's right: there are plenty ofpeople who can help you, if you will but let them. Your recommendation "is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek." Well tell me then, with an understanding like that, which of Kevin's present tenses is actually a present tense?Did you agreewith him that this "is exactly the road we travel on when we enter into the greek game. Endless arguments about the sense of 'being' versus the nuaances of 'having been'"?If you did, then get in the race: I challenge any of you to tell me the answer without firstgoing to the Greek. Tell me, Kevin, are you willing to"make your stand, withoutany scripture to back up your Philosophy"? If not, thenpunch inthe Greekand notice the tense
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
BTW whan you and DM resolve the issue let us know. Are you getting closer?Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out?I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification.And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our'sFor both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of oneHB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for allJUDE 1:1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ Seems they are all present tense must be a KJV thingy. (emphasis my own) Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in thepresent tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to acompleted past with lingering effects. Would you mind venturing a guess as to which one it is?David claims thatthis type ofKJV shorthand is not a problem;he can tell by context when a perfect tense is being implied. Perhaps he can. What big deal is that? He's studied the Greek. My question to you is, why can't you tell the difference? Why isn't Kevin able to tell which one of these is in the present tense, and why can't he tell that the other five are perfects? He's got God'sWord and Holy Spirit to guide him. Izzy doesn't know how right she is: "If only the scribes and Pharisees can understand God's Word, and we must depend upon their interpretations, we are in big trouble. Fortunately this is not the case." She's right: there are plenty ofpeople who can help you, if you will but let them. Your recommendation "is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek." Well tell me then, with an understanding like that, which of Kevin's present tenses is actually a present tense?Did you agreewith him that this "is exactly the road we travel on when we enter into the greek game. Endless arguments about the sense of 'being' versus the nuaances of 'having been'"?If you did, then get in the race: I challenge any of you to tell me the answer without firstgoing to the Greek. Tell me, Kevin, are you willing to"make your stand, withoutany scripture to back up your Philosophy"? If not, thenpunch inthe Greekand notice the tense results. Judy claimed that I and my "Gk Dictionary cohorts are putting [ourselves] into a very definite
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor FAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
And before 1384 ?? All the way back to the beginning. What do we have there interms of authorized bibles? Huh Mr Duh ? You are going to run out of answers, here, pretty quick, pal. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? DUH! 1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. 1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Just think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Then childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner? On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This type of trust invokes God and you will understand far more then what you glean from the Greek.-Original Message-From: Ke
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
So what purification process did your Depraved greek text go thru? By the looks of the MSS it did not work they are anything but pure! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorFAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Read the other post... duh[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:And before 1384 ?? All the way back to the beginning. What do we have there interms of authorized bibles? Huh Mr Duh ? You are going to run out of answers, here, pretty quick, pal. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWhat was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV?DUH!1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. 1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution is to have a simple child-like trust in the KJ-This typ
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
All the way back to the beginning. Read the other post... duhO I am sorry I forgot I have to bottle feed you. You are so FULL of Doubt and false Dilemas! And change your diapers How About - Older versions:Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD Arabic, Persian, and Armenian versions Old Latin version 150 AD Other old Translations carried around the world, by missionaries preachers. Extant Greek manuscripts The Old Testament preserved by the Jews. Romans 3:2 unto them were committed the oracles of God.O my O my what did they read before that?What scripture did Paroah read? Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Read the other post... duh[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And before 1384 ?? All the way back to the beginning. What do we have there interms of authorized bibles? Huh Mr Duh ? You are going to run out of answers, here, pretty quick, pal. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWhat was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV?DUH!1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. 1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Kevin , do you know how a translation is created? It is not just a fresh English translationof a set of greek MSS. Not at all. Rather, it is includes a comparison of previous English translations.As a result, we expect to see similaritiesbetween some of the translations. but more than that -- I would venture the guess that not a single translator ,if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T cameup with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said. His opinion IS themajority opinion, without a doubt.-Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:33:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Your argument falls on deaf ears. The ears ofthe vast majority of Greek scholars, who totally disagree with you. What makes your Private Interpretation better than theirs? Becuase it is yours?Taylor wmtaylor@plains.net wrote: Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out? I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one HB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all JUDE 1:1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ Seems they are all present tense must be a KJV thingy. (emphasis my own) Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in thepresent tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to acompleted past with lingering effects. Would you mind venturing a guess as to which one it is? David claims thatthis type ofKJV shorthand is not a problem;he can tell by context when a perfect tense is being implied. Perhaps he can. What big deal is that? He's studied the Greek. My question to you is, why can't you tell the difference? Why isn't Kevin able to tell which one of these is in the present tense, and why can't he tell that the other five are perfects? He's got God'sWord a
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? The vast majority of people do not read DEAD Languages. See the False dichotomy here? Which text? Minority TextChoose you this day who you will serve!Here is the real WHOPPER: The Word of man in the "man-made" translation OR The "actual" Word of GodFaithPhil.2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.OR FOLLY,that of the critic? "The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office ... were ... actually guilty of ERROR IN THEIR SPOKEN AND WRITTEN WORD" (Barth, Church Dogmatics).Which for you? Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version?If this is your measure for truth, the go ahead throw out your new versions because they are the ones that come forth out of the Corrupt MSS that contained the Apocrypha! The KJV Greek TEXTUS RECEPTUSdoes NOT contain the Apocrypha. BUT The oldest best GREEK CODEX used for the new versions DOES CONTAIN the Apocrypha.The questionssome of youcome up with are unbelievable I must assume you are intent on setting up a Straw man attack since your ACCUSATIONS actually apply to the new versions rather than the KJV. You then attack the KJV based on the false inaplicable ACCUSATIONS. Of course it is possible that you have been duped and are horribly ignorant of the facts. These are the only 2 choices, ignorant or dishonest. Which is it?The Apocryphacame to us in Greek, as well as Latin but not in Scriptural Hebrew. They aredeuterocanonical, or second level and were included in the KJVfor historical reason - NOT AS Scripture.Everyone knows they were not accepted as scripture as you imply In fact the KJV Translators gave SEVEN REASONS for NOT including it as scripture! The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.Who would be so foolish to intersperse Greek Latin text into the OT which came to us in Hebrew? If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction or inteligence of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the HEBREW Old Testament thus giving it authority AS Scripture. The Apocrypha is not part of the KJV bible anymore than the bible dictionary is, in the back of your bible! But it is part of the source documents for the New Versions![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
John don't flatter me me with you utter Arrogance. Besides you don't even see the problem, Possibly you justavoid the Depraved MSS issue since you have NO SUBTERFUGE to log jam the facts with.Bill by the way learned that in first year greek. If Bill is the majority opinion please for the fourth or fifth time now send along some names of greek scholars who see itt that way.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Kevin , do you know how a translation is created? It is not just a fresh English translationof a set of greek MSS. Not at all. Rather, it is includes a comparison of previous English translations.As a result, we expect to see similaritiesbetween some of the translations. but more than that -- I would venture the guess that not a single translator ,if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T cameup with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said. His opinion IS themajority opinion, without a doubt.-Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:33:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYour argument falls on deaf ears. The ears ofthe vast majority of Greek scholars, who totally disagree with you. What makes your Private Interpretation better than theirs? Becuase it is yours?Taylor wmtaylor@plains.net wrote:Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out?I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification.And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our'sFor both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of oneHB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for allJUDE 1:1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ Seems they are all present tense must be a KJV thingy. (emphasis my own) Yeah, you better believe it is a KJV thingy. The problem is, only one of these "are sanctified" phrases in Kevin's list of six is actually in thepresent tense; the rest are perfect tense and speak to acompleted past with lingering effects. Would you min
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Have you figured out what version Phario read, yet?Run out of answers or just avoiding again? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:And before 1384 ?? All the way back to the beginning. What do we have there interms of authorized bibles? Huh Mr Duh ? You are going to run out of answers, here, pretty quick, pal. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorWhat was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV?DUH!1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. 1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Uh oh! JD has circumvented Wikipedia now and has become smarter than their experts who say . "The only Bible which can legitimately be called a "revision" is the New King James Version, since it is based on the same Greek textsthe Textus Receptus." On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:24:41 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor FAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
I don't believe there are any Kevin - Looks like we are stuck with Bill and his Gk revelation alone Now tell me Is it "interpretation, translation, or commentary?" The more JD talks the more confusing it allbecomes. I will have to stop reading him soon On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:07:45 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John don't flatter me me with you utter Arrogance. Besides you don't even see the problem, Possibly you justavoid the Depraved MSS issue since you have NO SUBTERFUGE to log jam the facts with. Bill by the way learned that in first year greek. If Bill is the majority opinion please for the fourth or fifth time now send along some names of greek scholars who see itt that way.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin , do you know how a translation is created? It is not just a fresh English translationof a set of greek MSS. Not at all. Rather, it is includes a comparison of previous English translations.As a result, we expect to see similaritiesbetween some of the translations. but more than that -- I would venture the guess that not a single translator ,if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T cameup with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said. His opinion IS themajority opinion, without a doubt.-Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:33:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Your argument falls on deaf ears. The ears ofthe vast majority of Greek scholars, who totally disagree with you. What makes your Private Interpretation better than theirs? Becuase it is yours?Taylor wmtaylor@plains.net wrote: Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out? I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
You have misrepresented the facts for the sake of a mythology - 7 instead of 8 - and you got busted (again - its so easy) and your response is to ignore the facts and try to develop yet another thread . Nice try, but no cigar. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:33:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor So what purification process did your Depraved greek text go thru? By the looks of the MSS it did not work they are anything but pure! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor FAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
onished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him.}..." The portions in brackets are left out of the NASB, NIV, RSV. But when we compare the account found in Acts 26:14-15 we see a different set and order of words employed. There we read: "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice {speaking} unto me, {and} saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why prsecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick
against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And {he} said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise..." The words in brackets are either omitted or changed in the texts underlying the NASB, NIV, RSV. Notice the changes from "he fell" to "we were all fallen", "he heard a voice" to "I heard a voice" and more importantly in Acts 9 it is only after Paul asks Who it is and the Lord identifies Himself as Jesus, that we read "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do?" However in the Acts 26 account Jesus first tells Paul Who He is and that it is hard for Paul to kick against the pricks, and then Paul asks who it is that is speaking to him. Of great importance is the fact that none of these debated words which are omitted in the NASB, NIV, RSV "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do?" are found there in Acts 26. To assert
that they were taken from Acts 26 and placed in Acts 9 is patently ridiculous because they do not appear in any texts in Acts 26. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Acts9-5-6.html[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which
edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of
the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorJust think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
corrector/revisorThen childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner?On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYou misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to mention the limiting effect it would have on what God is doing or teaching me in my life. jd cd: My recommendation for this solution
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Give him some time to study the subject and maybe his accusations will become argumentsJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe there are any Kevin - Looks like we are stuck with Bill and his Gk revelation alone Now tell me Is it "interpretation, translation, or commentary?" The more JD talks the more confusing it allbecomes. I will have to stop reading him soon On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:07:45 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John don't flatter me me with you utter Arrogance. Besides you don't even see the problem, Possibly you justavoid the Depraved MSS issue since you have NO SUBTERFUGE to log jam the facts with.Bill by the way learned that in first year greek. If Bill is the majority opinion please for the fourth or fifth time now send along some names of greek scholars who see itt that way.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Kevin , do you know how a translation is created? It is not just a fresh English translationof a set of greek MSS. Not at all. Rather, it is includes a comparison of previous English translations.As a result, we expect to see similaritiesbetween some of the translations. but more than that -- I would venture the guess that not a single translator ,if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T cameup with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said. His opinion IS themajority opinion, without a doubt.-Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:33:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorYour argument falls on deaf ears. The ears ofthe vast majority of Greek scholars, who totally disagree with you. What makes your Private Interpretation better than theirs? Becuase it is yours?Taylor wmtaylor@plains.net wrote:Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out?I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification.And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our'sFor both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of oneHB 10:10 By the which will we are sanc
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
JD and facts? like whipped cream on an Onion![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You have misrepresented the facts for the sake of a mythology - 7 instead of 8 - and you got busted (again - its so easy) and your response is to ignore the facts and try to develop yet another thread . Nice try, but no cigar. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:33:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorSo what purification process did your Depraved greek text go thru? By the looks of the MSS it did not work they are anything but pure! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorFAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Why don't you deal with the subject JD? Over your head? In too deep, no new accusations? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:You have misrepresented the facts for the sake of a mythology - 7 instead of 8 - and you got busted (again - its so easy) and your response is to ignore the facts and try to develop yet another thread . Nice try, but no cigar. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:33:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorSo what purification process did your Depraved greek text go thru? By the looks of the MSS it did not work they are anything but pure! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorFAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Actually, you ran out of answers much quicker than I thought !!! :-) jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:34:25 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Read the other post... duh[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And before 1384 ?? All the way back to the beginning. What do we have there interms of authorized bibles? Huh Mr Duh ? You are going to run out of answers, here, pretty quick, pal. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? DUH! 1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. 1611 - The seventh major English translation of the Scriptures, the King James Bible, is published and adopted as "The Authorized Version". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not know why you go off on such a tangent? You are the one who believes this if you believe that the KJV translation "is the only one for me," What was used for English speaking folk beforethe KJV? Which edition of the received text IS the correct one and why did it take a Dutch Catholic so long to get it right? And which edition of the KJV is the right one? The one with all those other books in it, or the Protestant version? And why did Erasmus add ACts 9:6a? You above all people know full well that this does not appear in any greek text ? And what about the last six verses of Revelations? Erasmus couldn't find those words. What is of more value, here -- the actual greek text (received text) or the man-made translation of that text? Regarding W H - you have apparently forgotten what I said about them? I believe that the written message has always been there.Ialso believe that God's has never ceased to work His will nor the Power of the Indwelling to have ever been made void. -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:01:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Just think for all those years the church did not have the word of God just a Single Man-Made translation. UNTIL (1881)God found himself TWO RCC Heretics named Westcott Hort to RESTORE the Original intent text! Sort of like a Christianized verison of the JO Smith story![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy, I spoke of a single edition, not a single-man made edition. I don't care how many translatedit, and neither do you. the KJV is a production of the will and purpose of mankind. It is a man-made translation. But throw out the MSS. That is certainly your preference. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:07:40 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Then childishness has taken a lot of ppl to heaven and blessed generations for more than 400yrs. It wasn't a single man JD, it was 46 different teams that were sanctified or set apart and worked prayerfully together - so why such vehement opposition from your corner? On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not child like faith that disgards the MSS and preaches dependence on a single man-made translation, it is childishness. :-)-Original Message-From: Dean Moore cd_moore@earthlink.netTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:40:12 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor - Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 11/25/2005 10:15:36 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor You misrepresent the B side of the room. The final authority is what God wants me to see as I read a given text . not what a translator wants me to believe. You want to toss the MSS and trust a given man-made edition of the bible without personalverification -- be my guest. Iwould be an ignorant man to do so . not to me
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Thanks JD I have reconsidered PS 12 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.The scripturesays PURIFIED seven times. Therefore the KJV would not count since it is the PRODUCT not part of the PROCESS of PURIFICATION For instance in the water purification process the end product PURE WATER is not considered part of the process but the end product! THEREFORE First Purification 1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heritic. Second Purification 1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heritic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures. THIRD 1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious licence." Later, during "Bloody Mary's reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England. Fourth 1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a licence. Fifth 1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Mathew Bible; becomes the first victim of "Bloody Mary," queen of England. Sixth Purification 1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible. Seventh Purification Bishops bibleThe FINISHED Product 1611 "The Authorized Version". He that forsakes the truth of God, forsakes the God of truth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have misrepresented the facts for the sake of a mythology - 7 instead of 8 - and you got busted (again - its so easy) and your response is to ignore the facts and try to develop yet another thread . Nice try, but no cigar. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:33:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorSo what purification process did your Depraved greek text go thru? By the looks of the MSS it did not work they are anything but pure! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisorFAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
If you can't understand what I wrote, just say so.It makes you look rather ridiculous to pretend to be dealing with the point I actually made about Bill's stated opinion when, in fact, you aren't. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:07:45 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor John don't flatter me me with you utter Arrogance. Besides you don't even see the problem, Possibly you justavoid the Depraved MSS issue since you have NO SUBTERFUGE to log jam the facts with. Bill by the way learned that in first year greek. If Bill is the majority opinion please for the fourth or fifth time now send along some names of greek scholars who see itt that way.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin , do you know how a translation is created? It is not just a fresh English translationof a set of greek MSS. Not at all. Rather, it is includes a comparison of previous English translations.As a result, we expect to see similaritiesbetween some of the translations. but more than that -- I would venture the guess that not a single translator ,if asked to give an opinion on what Bill has written (in plain English, by the way, Terry) would dispute his commentary. Where in the world do you think Bill T cameup with such ideas? You think he just made them up -- pulled them out of thin air??? You can't find a greek grammar that will disagree with what he has said. His opinion IS themajority opinion, without a doubt.-Original Message- From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:33:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Your argument falls on deaf ears. The ears ofthe vast majority of Greek scholars, who totally disagree with you. What makes your Private Interpretation better than theirs? Becuase it is yours?Taylor wmtaylor@plains.net wrote: Dean writes Yet us ignorant people gave the meaning of the present and future tense of the word sanctified as Christ taught in the bible the first time out. No, Dean, you did not. And if you do now, it is only because you have been through the process of the last four days. The truth is, the first time out you interpreted my words as an invitation to debate your Wesleyan theology, obviously having previously missed the present passive aspect of this participle. As for some of your homies: Judy's first response was to accuse me of introducing an idea into the text which "is not there," and of having "madea straw man to knock down"; and Kevin's was to accuseme of making"the text wrong"; he then went on a two daysnipe hunt,looking fora passive "being" in the Greek text. And he would still be out there, were it not for David calling him in. Is this how you guysget it the first time out? I presented my concernabout the KJ translation as this,that it was prone to leading English readers into confusion: '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?'To which David's response was "How can you be so dogmatic about them being mistaken? What convinces you that they are wrong to translate as are sanctified?"The problem with this translation is thatit is ambiguous and hence easily misunderstood. Notice what Kevin says in return: "The action is past tense. So what is the problem?" The problem is the action is present tense and progressive -- it is the participial adjective that is in a past tense form. Moreover, the problem is that Kevin unwittingly demonstrates my very concern, even if you and he and everyone else is unwilling to admit it. But that is only the beginning. Kevin boasts that, "God gave the Word he gave us the Holy Spirit and as Dean points out some were able to GET IT, right out of the gate! When are the rest going to getIN the race?" Let's look at how "the Word" and "the Holy Spirit" have helped Kevin "GET IT." While criticizing me for adding "being" to my translation, he writes, Perhaps these? Should we insert "Being" sanctified? if not these there must be some other evidence for the ONGOING EVENT of sanctification. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one HB 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all JUDE 1:1 to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Je
Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
Running your mouth is no substitute for having been caught ... 7 instead of a righteous 8. Kind of makes one wonder about your other "factual" statements and interpretations of scripture, doesn't. Lucky for you thatGod blessed the unwise and foolish -- or am I mistaken as to how those words are used in I Co 2? jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:38:39 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor Why don't you deal with the subject JD? Over your head? In too deep, no new accusations? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have misrepresented the facts for the sake of a mythology - 7 instead of 8 - and you got busted (again - its so easy) and your response is to ignore the facts and try to develop yet another thread . Nice try, but no cigar. Jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:33:17 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor So what purification process did your Depraved greek text go thru? By the looks of the MSS it did not work they are anything but pure! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it is not doubt that you see. It is distrust. For example -- you speak ofthe KJV as being 7 times purified or some such nonsense. And you give the reader a list of7bibles beginning with Wycliffe and ending with the KJV. You conveniently leave off the Bishop Bible -- you know , the one of which the KJV was a revision -- so you could comeup with your mythological "7." The readers will need to refer to the post just previous to this one for that list. jd-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:46:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor FAITH versus DOUBT that is what it is all about. Even if you ignore the scriptures the meat of the post. It still speaks volumes.You take no issue with the claim that you Doubt, for obvious reasons. No need to DO what God says since you can't find the original intent yet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides nobody "DISGARDS" anything! You got to be kidding !! You and Judy are the most anti-theologicans I have ever seen. Male and female created He them. jd __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
