"valid" versions

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: He calls God a liar by doing so. I think this is one of the most damaging books on child rearing I have ever read. Michael Pearl and his wife Debi are dangerous false teachers. I feel that strongly about them.

HP: Knowing you feel so strongly makes me want to read their book.:thumbs: Anytime I hear others throwing stones with words such as ‘sinless perfection’ it always peeks my interest, knowing almost always it is a false charge with no validity to it. Of course it also depends on what one means by ‘sinless perfection.’

Your condemnation may in fact attest to the truthfulness of it. I will try and get a copy of it to read.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: I believe we should start calling those such as yourself AOVTKJV “Any Other Version Than King James Version.”

Are you going to tell us that if one is KJVO everything they have to offer is in error?? How about the simple counting of how many times the word repent (or other words as well) is omitted, or the numerous changes of certain words for others that do not make reading the least bit easier or the truth one whit clearer in meaning?

Your statement simply lacks any notion of fairness or objectivity Amy. You exhibit an unusual bias that obviously destroys your ability to reason fairly. That may be true in the case of those that claim to be KJVO as well, but that still does not excuse us for acting the same does it?

I am being quite fair as I have studied this out. I doubt that you have because of your ignorant remarks about words being "omitted".
I have compared the KJV with the NKJV. Sometimes words are different, but that does not make them inaccurate.

Let's take this verse in the KJV:

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Does this verse mean that wives will win their husbands to Christ if they talk a lot? How many people would look up that word in a dictionary? We all know what "conversation" means, right?

Here it is in the NKJV:
1Pe 3:1 WIVES, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,

According to The King James Dictionary:
CONVERSATION, n.

1. General course of manners; behavior; deportment; especially as it respects morals.
Let your conversation be as becometh the gospel. Philippians 1.

Which version is the most easily understood by today's people?



The KJV is a translation, translated by men. These men were of the Church of England and believed in infant baptism. They were not perfect. They made a new translation when there was a perfectly good translation already in use, the Geneva Bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If any are interested, the first chapter of the book “To Train up a Child” is online at:

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

Having read the first chapter it has indeed peaked my interest. It is obvious to me at least in this first chapter the writers have much wisdom to offer. :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Antiaging as quoted in post 209:
// Chick calls them closet catholics in his online tract "The Attack"

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp //


Heavenly Pilgrim in post #237:
// I have not read the comic book you are referring to, ... //

The link is where you can read the tract.
I once tryed to verify the claims of THE ATTACK (similiar charges including the anti-RCC conspiracy theories appear in a book I have called SABOTAGE? which includes source references).

Here are some of the referenced texts:

BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION by Ralph Woodrow
WHICH BIBLE? by David Otis Fuller
GOD ONLYL WROTE ONE BIBLE by J.J.Ray
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE by P.S.Ruckman
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills TH.D.

None of these sources are worth a flip

(Unfortunately in 1979 I couldn't find these sources. I have researched these matters since then /not every hour of every day/ and tryed find these sources. I even used the publicly available resources of the University of Oklahoma (OU) Library and couldn't find them. Now days you can probably buy them from Chick.com ) They all tend to quote and misquote each other. Like you have a circle of a dozen people who all write a book quoting the other's books. I even know circles where this is done. This history & philosophy of Atlantis has thousands of books out all of which mutually quote each other. There is no history of Atlantis, a fictional land possibly based on the volcano that blew away 6 cubic miles off the top of what is now the Greek Island of Thira. BTW, go check out the Mediterranean covered center of Thira on Google Maps - there are three different Cruise ships in those waters! Ain't the internet a good place to research stuff !)

 

[Amy.G]

If any are interested, the first chapter of the book “To Train up a Child” is online at:

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

Having read the first chapter it has indeed peaked my interest. It is obvious to me at least in this first chapter the writers have much wisdom to offer. :thumbs:

Yeah. Sounds great if your training a dog or a mule. The Bible says not to provoke your children. You should never entice your children to disobey. We even have laws against such in our society. It's called "entrapment".

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: 1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Does this verse mean that wives will win their husbands to Christ if they talk a lot?

HP: No, and I have never heard one that has read the KJV that would understand it as you indicate. I believe that would be denoted as a straw man argument, or creating a paper duck to shoot at.

 

[DHK]

Here are some of the referenced texts:

BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION by Ralph Woodrow
WHICH BIBLE? by David Otis Fuller
GOD ONLYL WROTE ONE BIBLE by J.J.Ray
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE by P.S.Ruckman
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills TH.D.

None of these sources are worth a flip

(Unfortunately in 1979 I couldn't find these sources.

Unfortunately I don't believe you looked very hard.
I have all of the above books except for Ruckman's whose books I would never buy anyway. But out of that list that is the only book that I wouldn't buy.

David Otis Fuller and Edward Hills in particular, are both scholars in their own right. Their information should not be dismissed lightly. Perhaps your opinion of them "is not worth a flip."

 

[annsni]

HP: Knowing you feel so strongly makes me want to read their book.:thumbs: Anytime I hear others throwing stones with words such as ‘sinless perfection’ it always peeks my interest, knowing almost always it is a false charge with no validity to it. Of course it also depends on what one means by ‘sinless perfection.’

Your condemnation may in fact attest to the truthfulness of it. I will try and get a copy of it to read.

For the sinless perfectionism, you'll have to listen to his messages on Romans. I do think the sinless perfectionism is in the Romans 5 message. Let me check my notes....

No - the Romans 5 was him speaking on something else.

Instead it's in his article "Living Parallel Lives in the Same Space (No Greater Joy, Jan-Feb 2005) he says:

"These messages are not motivational teachings or principles for you to apply. They are the wonderful good news that Christ has done everything to free you from all sin, all the time, from this day forward, to sin no more.
... We should and can sin no more!
"

"I have been preaching and living this gospel of sanctification for many years. It is not a theory. It is practical, Scriptural reality. I preach it in the prisons, and it works on men who have lived lives of total addiction and enslavement. They come up to me all the time, bubbling over with joy, and tell me that they are now free from all sin. I have followed them when they get out, and I can put you in touch with sons of Adam who are now Sons of God walking in complete victory over sin and self."

 

[Amy.G]

HP: No, and I have never heard one that has read the KJV that would understand it as you indicate. I believe that would be denoted as a straw man argument, or creating a paper duck to shoot at.

If that's true then the people you know have been taught by someone that "conversation" means behavior. A person who reads that for the first time, without any outside influence would naturally think "conversation" means "to talk".

Do you think the NKJV has erred in using the word "conduct"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: You should never entice your children to disobey. We even have laws against such in our society. It's called "entrapment".

HP: You need to watch more TV. (only kidding) There is a clear difference between entrapment and enticement. If all enticement was entrapment, law enforcement could never operate a sting operation. Entrapment is wrong and cannot be done, but a sting operation is completely legal and does in fact use enticement to some degree or another.

Did God employ entrapment in the garden?

If you have a problem with the methods employed, do not use them. That is still no reason for anyone to denigrate them personally or to charge them falsely.

 

[annsni]

If any are interested, the first chapter of the book “To Train up a Child” is online at:

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

Having read the first chapter it has indeed peaked my interest. It is obvious to me at least in this first chapter the writers have much wisdom to offer. :thumbs:

Is this wisdom?

"When God wanted to "train" his first two children not to touch, He did not place the forbidden object out of their reach. Instead, He placed the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in the "midst of the garden" (Gen. 3:3). Since it was readily accessible in the middle of the garden, they would be exposed to its temptation more often. God's purpose was not to save the tree, but rather, to train the couple." (To Train Up a Child, page 5)

That's not wisdom but idiocy and in complete disagreement with God. James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"

It is also obvious that this man has never understood horse training nor actually seen it done. If I were to train my horse or any of the other alteast 20 horses I've trained in the way that he states in this book, I'd have raised killers. My horse right now stands 5'9" at the withers (at the bottom of his mane where it meets his spine/back). He weighs approximately 1500 lbs. I'm 5'3" and 140 lbs. Trust me - the way he states is neither a wise way to try to train a horse nor the way the Amish do it.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: You need to watch more TV. (only kidding) There is a clear difference between entrapment and enticement. If all enticement was entrapment, law enforcement could never operate a sting operation. Entrapment is wrong and cannot be done, but a sting operation is completely legal and does in fact use enticement to some degree or another.

Did God employ entrapment in the garden?

If you have a problem with the methods employed, do not use them. That is still no reason for anyone to denigrate them personally or to charge them falsely.

You seem to be advocating that we should treat our children like the police treat criminals. Wow.
I have heard about this couple's teachings from other sources besides the BB and none of it has been good.
Ann has posted a lot of exerpts from their writings (several months ago) and I cannot believe any responsible loving parent would use such methods. Bad behavior deserves punishment, but we are not to "entice" our children to sin. Disobedience is sin.

 

[annsni]

HP: No, and I have never heard one that has read the KJV that would understand it as you indicate. I believe that would be denoted as a straw man argument, or creating a paper duck to shoot at.

Seriously? I'd challenge you to take your Bible and go to the mall. Show that verse to 10 people and see how many say that it means "behavior".

 

[Ed Edwards]

1 John 3:17 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
And whosoeuer hath this worlds good, and seeth his brother haue neede, and shutteth vp his compassion from him, howe dwelleth the loue of God in him?

1 John 3:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
But who so hath this worlds good, and seeth his brother hath need, and shutteth vp his bowels of compassion from him; how dwelleth the loue of God in him?

So who started the idea that the spleen (or bowels) is the seat of compassion
- 1st century AD 0001-0100) Jews?
- 1st century AD 0001-0100) Greeks?
- 17th century (AD 1601=1700) English?

It sure is not a 21st Century (2001-2100) idea

 

[Rippon]

Seriously? I'd challenge you to take your Bible and go to the mall. Show that verse to 10 people and see how many say that it means "behavior".

The KJV men could have used the word "behavior"more often than they did.It was available to them -- they did not have to rely on (even at that time) antiquated "conversation".Look at the following from the KJV.

1 Sam. 21:13 :...and he changed his behaviour before them

1 Tim. 3:2 :...good behaviour

Titus 2:3 : ...in behaviour as becoming holiness

 

[annsni]

The KJV men could have used the word "behavior"more often than they did.It was available to them -- they did not have to rely on (even at that time) antiquated "conversation".Look at the following from the KJV.

1 Sam. 21:13 :...and he changed his behaviour before them

1 Tim. 3:2 :...good behaviour

Titus 2:3 : ...in behaviour as becoming holiness

Could "conversation" have meant something different in 1611 as opposed to 2008? Could it be that it meant behavior back then? But we know that you cannot say to anyone "Be on your best conversation" and have them understand what we mean.

 

[EdSutton]

Here are some of the referenced texts:

BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION by Ralph Woodrow

WHICH BIBLE? by David Otis Fuller

GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE by J.J.Ray (Title typo corrected by me - ES)

MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE by P.S.Ruckman

THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills TH.D.

None of these sources are worth a flip

(Unfortunately in 1979 I couldn't find these sources. I have researched these matters since then /not every hour of every day/ and tryed find these sources. I even used the publicly available resources of the University of Oklahoma (OU) Library and couldn't find them. Now days you can probably buy them from Chick.com )

I have some familiarity with the two in blue, considering I have both of them, and have had for many years. I am somewhat familiar with the other two, although I am not familiar with (although vaguely aware of) GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE by J. J. Ray.

The first one, BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION by Rev. Ralph Woodrow is unquestionably "not worth a flip". This is not even debatable!

Actually, BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION is costly at any price, unless one is simply into collecting books (I keep every one I get.), as the real value of this particular book is far less than worthless!

I would assume the value of the other four are all debatable, although I find the presuppositions, logic and evidence of Dr. Edward Freer Hills, as somewhat less than persuasive, in his books, I admit.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

Could "conversation" have meant something different in 1611 as opposed to 2008? Could it be that it meant behavior back then? But we know that you cannot say to anyone "Be on your best conversation" and have them understand what we mean.

As I said,even in 1611 it was a dated usage of the word.I think the word meant conduct or behaviour when used like "Let your conversation..."

So today I am in full favor of using something like conduct or behaviour.Preserving antique forms doesn't = a good translation.That's just pure traditionalism.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As I said,even in 1611 it was a dated usage of the word.I think the word meant conduct or behaviour when used like "Let your conversation..."

So today I am in full favor of using something like conduct or behaviour.Preserving antique forms doesn't = a good translation.That's just pure traditionalism.

I agree with most of this, except that from what I have read in the past the word 'conversation' had only about 50 years earlier become used to 'talking' so chances are both meanings were common. At one stage, I think, the word was used to refer to sexu@l activity and criminal conversation was a term for adultery. But that would throw another spanner in the works .

 

[Rippon]

I agree with most of this, except that from what I have read in the past the word 'conversation' had only about 50 years earlier become used to 'talking' so chances are both meanings were common. At one stage, I think, the word was used to refer to sexu@l activity and criminal conversation was a term for adultery. But that would throw another spanner in the works .

Yeah,let's not go there!