Bible Discussion: Holman Bible Translation

Holman Bible Translation
Posts: 11

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

John
2004-09-14 11:50:01 EST
What do you say about this translation? I just bought it yesterday on
Laridian for my HPC.

The text there says

"Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) text for use with all versions
of PocketBible.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible is a literal, word-for-word
translation from the original languages that has been painstakingly
stylized in modern-day English. The result is a text that shows respect
for the inerrancy of Scripture\ufffdthat is clear and understandable without
being over-simplified, paraphrased, or held captive to cultural trends."


It differs from the KJV and NASB with some verses and passages. But
I've heard others say that the KJV and NASB were literal translations.


John
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it\ufffds taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can\ufffdt afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Pastor Dave
2004-09-15 07:35:18 EST
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:50:01 -0700, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:

>What do you say about this translation? I just bought it yesterday on
>Laridian for my HPC.
>
>The text there says
>
>"Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) text for use with all versions
>of PocketBible.
>
>The Holman Christian Standard Bible is a literal, word-for-word
>translation from the original languages that has been painstakingly
>stylized in modern-day English. The result is a text that shows respect
>for the inerrancy of Scripture¬čthat is clear and understandable without
>being over-simplified, paraphrased, or held captive to cultural trends."
>
>
>It differs from the KJV and NASB with some verses and passages. But
>I've heard others say that the KJV and NASB were literal translations.

They are translated from two different texts. The KJV
for example, is based on the Textus Receptus (Received
Text), which is considered to be a part of the Majority
Texts, which are over 5,000 strong and agree with each
other about 98% of the time. The NASB and the Holman,
are based off the corrupt Alexandrian Text. One can
have a great translation of Playboy, but it's still
Playboy. I would only trust those which are translated
from Majority Texts. The KJV, the NKJV (although it
has some issues), the LITV, and the ALT (which is an NT
only). Also, the MKJV. All except the KJV are modern
English. If you wish to know more, let me know and
I'll email you some more information.



Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c036.html



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John
2004-09-15 11:54:57 EST
In article <rv9gk0l43n67d1h226umde78s6rl6spnt0@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

> They are translated from two different texts. The KJV
> for example, is based on the Textus Receptus (Received
> Text), which is considered to be a part of the Majority
> Texts, which are over 5,000 strong and agree with each
> other about 98% of the time. The NASB and the Holman,
> are based off the corrupt Alexandrian Text. One can
> have a great translation of Playboy, but it's still
> Playboy. I would only trust those which are translated
> from Majority Texts. The KJV, the NKJV (although it
> has some issues), the LITV, and the ALT (which is an NT
> only). Also, the MKJV. All except the KJV are modern
> English. If you wish to know more, let me know and
> I'll email you some more information.

Hmm, interesting. So the KJV may be the most accurate translation of
the bible? Well the Holman sounds great, but at least its not the TNIV
and that I agree is a corrupt translation. My bible software has a
bunch of different translations and the TNIV was deleted. However the
Holman and other non KJV translations will stay.

You know pastor Dave you talk like you have had much influence from John
MacArthur, John Piper, Charles Spurgen, Hank Hanegraaf and other
teachers of this nature who are quick to correct and rebuke. I do not
disagree with these teachers, and try to model their example.


John
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it\ufffds taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can\ufffdt afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Pastor Dave
2004-09-15 20:14:50 EST
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:54:57 -0700, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:

>In article <rv9gk0l43n67d1h226umde78s6rl6spnt0@4ax.com>,
> Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> They are translated from two different texts. The KJV
>> for example, is based on the Textus Receptus (Received
>> Text), which is considered to be a part of the Majority
>> Texts, which are over 5,000 strong and agree with each
>> other about 98% of the time. The NASB and the Holman,
>> are based off the corrupt Alexandrian Text. One can
>> have a great translation of Playboy, but it's still
>> Playboy. I would only trust those which are translated
>> from Majority Texts. The KJV, the NKJV (although it
>> has some issues), the LITV, and the ALT (which is an NT
>> only). Also, the MKJV. All except the KJV are modern
>> English. If you wish to know more, let me know and
>> I'll email you some more information.
>
>Hmm, interesting. So the KJV may be the most accurate translation of
>the bible?

It very well may be, especially when you eliminate
those based on the corrupt Alexandrian Text, since who
wants that anyway?


>Well the Holman sounds great, but at least its not the TNIV
>and that I agree is a corrupt translation. My bible software has a
>bunch of different translations and the TNIV was deleted. However the
>Holman and other non KJV translations will stay.

I have many translations in my software. That doesn't
mean I consider them all worth owning. I just use them
to see the differences.


>You know pastor Dave you talk like you have had much influence from John
>MacArthur, John Piper, Charles Spurgen, Hank Hanegraaf and other
>teachers of this nature who are quick to correct and rebuke. I do not
>disagree with these teachers, and try to model their example.

If correction is necessary, then isn't that our duty?
As I said, a Bible can be the most accurate translation
out there. But what it is translated from, is what's
important. I prefer not to use corrupt texts as the
basis for what I call the word of God. I have more
reverence for it than that. I want the word of God,
not the twisted words of God.



Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


http://www.unlimitedglory.org/evcha3.htm



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John
2004-09-15 21:38:24 EST
In article <nimhk0dj3202ahd7nnqgmta96vh078ia4i@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

> If correction is necessary, then isn't that our duty?
> As I said, a Bible can be the most accurate translation
> out there. But what it is translated from, is what's
> important. I prefer not to use corrupt texts as the
> basis for what I call the word of God. I have more
> reverence for it than that. I want the word of God,
> not the twisted words of God.

Yes but salvation truths are taught in the NIV, NASB, Living,etc... The
essentials to the faith do not cease to be told using those
translations. Also as a bible college student I have had the task of
studying multiple translations. I have found some issues with the
original KJV that you may deny. One such passage of several is below.

1 Cor 7:9

NIV
1Cor. 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for
it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

KJV
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry
than to burn.

Looking at the context of the verse, the NIV translates it better. One
can read the KJV and then think that if they did not marry, it would be
better if they burned in hell. When the bible makes references to
burning in KJV language, its usually the burning in hell.

Also I have found many differences between the NIV, KJV, and NKJV
regarding the naming of certain animals and insects. In some instances
both the NKJV and NIV agreed on a name for an animal or insect that the
KJV differed. Looking at the original text, and a imagery bible
dictionary I've discovered that the KJV was incorrect in these passages.
Unfortunately I did not write down every instance of a misnaming for an
animal or insect, because I know you will want it.


John
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it's taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can't afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Pastor Dave
2004-09-16 08:09:40 EST
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:38:24 -0700, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:


>In article <nimhk0dj3202ahd7nnqgmta96vh078ia4i@4ax.com>,
> Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If correction is necessary, then isn't that our duty?
>> As I said, a Bible can be the most accurate translation
>> out there. But what it is translated from, is what's
>> important. I prefer not to use corrupt texts as the
>> basis for what I call the word of God. I have more
>> reverence for it than that. I want the word of God,
>> not the twisted words of God.
>
>Yes but salvation truths are taught in the NIV, NASB, Living,etc... The
>essentials to the faith do not cease to be told using those
>translations.

With all due respect, so what? That makes them okay?
That makes them the word of God? When I go out to buy
a Bible, I am out trying to buy the word of God, not
just most of it, nor most of it with some of the words
twisted around. No offense, but that sounds like a
copout to try to justify using a corrupted Bible,
because you like the way it reads.

Look, rat poison is not all poison. If it were then
the rats wouldn't eat it. Rat poison is 99% good food
that rats love. But it's that 1% poison that kills
them. I can't tell you how many times I have had
conversations with people reading the NIV, etc., who
believe a false doctrine, because of the way it reads.
And some of these Bibles start right at the beginning,
taking away the six day creation, opting to make it
read so that it is compatible with the Day Age Theory,
or the Gap Theory, etc.. I'm sorry, but neither
evolution, nor progressive creation are compatible with
the word of God. In fact, if evolution is true, then
the Bible is false and Jesus was not our Saviour. That
may sound like a bold statement and it is, but it is
also easy to prove.

These Bibles also make intentional changes, thinking
there were scribal errors, or contradictions in the
Bible and put footnotes to that effect. So now what
happens? The reader begins to wonder how it is that
the so called perfect word of God could have
contradictions in it, or errors. How could God fail to
preserve His word? Maybe this stuff isn't so true
after all, huh? If there's an error here that was
supposedly caught, where else is there an error?

Here in America especially, we treat the word of God as
if it's nothing. It doesn't matter if the texts it's
translated from were corrupt, with gnostic influences.
It doesn't matter if people made changes to it and
still do. It doesn't matter who does the translating
(homosexuals, gnostics, etc.), as long as we have one
that reads the way we like. There is no reverence for
the word of God anymore and this saddens me. Not
everyone treats the Scriptures that way. And isn't it
amazing that we wouldn't want many of the people who do
the translation works preaching on our pulpits because
of the heresies they believe, yet we have our pastors
and lay people reading Bibles translated by them, which
were translated from texts done by the heretics Wescott
and Hort. Hmmmm... Ever think about that?

Look. If an accurate Bible, translated from the proper
texts is more difficult to read, then I would rather
raise my level of education to the Bible, than to dumb
the Bible down to my level of education.

Isn't it interesting how important we believe education
is and yet, when it comes to the most important words
we'll ever read, all of the sudden we get angry that
the KJV isn't written so that people don't have to
learn anything? We tell our children that's it's
wonderful that they learn Shakespeare, as it will raise
their level of thinking and then get upset at the
Elizabethan English of the KJV? And btw, it wasn't
even in use when they translated the KJV. They chose
that English, because it helped to bring out more of
the tenses, inflections and first/second person
pronouns of the Greek. I'm not saying the KJV is the
only Bible we could read. As I said, there are a few
more, based on the proper texts. The MKJV and the LITV
come to mind, although I have not read those cover to
cover yet.


>Also as a bible college student I have had the task of
>studying multiple translations. I have found some issues with the
>original KJV that you may deny. One such passage of several is below.
>
>1 Cor 7:9
>
>NIV
>1Cor. 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for
>it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
>
>KJV
>9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry
>than to burn.
>
>Looking at the context of the verse, the NIV translates it better. One
>can read the KJV and then think that if they did not marry, it would be
>better if they burned in hell. When the bible makes references to
>burning in KJV language, its usually the burning in hell.

That's not a good assessment, although I agree that
some have taken it that way. But that only tells of
their lack of study and lack of reading things in
context. Is that a problem with the KJV, or with the
reader?

Let's look at the two previous verses with it and the
one that follows it.

1 Corinthians 7:7-10

7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But
every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this
manner, and another after that.
8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is
good for them if they abide even as I.
9) But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it
is better to marry than to burn.
10) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the
Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

Here, in vs 7-8, Paul is telling them that he wished
that all would remain single, as he is. So is Paul
saying in v9 that he is going to burn in Hell and hopes
that everyone else does too? :)

And what of v10? He tells the married to stay married.
Why? So they'd be sure to burn in Hell? :)

Again, is it a problem with the KJV, or with the
reader? :)

To burn there, simply means to burn with lust. The NIV
added the words "with passion", without noting that
they were added by the translators. That's dishonest
(that they didn't note that, as the KJV does in other
passages, by putting the words in italics). But let's
say that you find 100 passages like this, remembering
that you have not shown an error in the KJV, only a
need to learn the language used a bit better and to
read in context. Does that negate the problems with
the NIV and make them okay? Here, let me give you an
example of the corruption of the NIV.

Let us have a look see at a couple of verses that have
been claimed to be contradictions by many, using the
KJV and the NIV as an example for comparison. The
argument is over whether Solomon had forty thousands
stalls, or four thousand stalls. You see, the editors
of the NIV decided that since they believed that there
was a scribal error there, that the wording should be
changed and so they "corrected" and reworded it (as
many modern translations have done). They admitted
this, so there is no dispute about that. The reality
is, that there was no contradiction to begin with and
careful reading of the KJV shows that to be the case.

While at first it does appear to be a contradiction in
the KJV, it isn't and the KJV is an accurate, literal
translation from the original Hebrew and not a "correct
the Hebrew version", in which translators sought to
correct the supposed scribal errors for them, as did
the NIV.

Let's look at the relevant verses first, in the KJV.

"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for
his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
- 1 Kings 4:26 KJV

"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he
bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at
Jerusalem." - 2 Chronicles 9:25 KJV

Note the wording of 1 Kings 4:26. It says that Solomon
had (read carefully now and pay attention to the caps),
"forty thousand stalls of horses FOR his chariots".

Now, that means that he had forty thousand stalls that
would each hold one horse. It doesn't say how many
stalls he had total, nor does it say how many chariots
he had. He did have for each horse a stall though.
And he had forty thousand horses, it appears. Okay,
let's move on.


Now we read 2 Chronicles 9:25. It says that Solomon
had, "four thousands stalls for horses AND chariots".

Note that this is an entirely different statement. It
doesn't talk about stalls for his horses, but rather,
stalls for his horses when tied to a chariot.

Now when we think of a chariot, we think of one horse,
one chariot. In reality, larger chariots were used to
go into battle, each of which held ten men and was
pulled by ten horses. That means that four thousand
chariots had ten horses each, which is forty thousand
horses tied to four thousand chariots, requiring four
thousand stalls for the time in which the horses were
connected to the chariots. Since you have forty
thousand horses, when they were not connected to the
chariots, you would need forty thousand smaller stalls
for them, which would mean "forty thousand stalls of
horses FOR his chariots". That is a total of forty
four thousand stalls (forty thousand smaller stalls for
just horses and four thousand larger stalls for when
his horses were tied to his chariots), not a total of
forty thousand and not a total of four thousand and it
makes perfect sense and is logical and no contradiction
is found in the text.

Now let's read the "corrected" version in the NIV.

"Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses,
and twelve thousand horses." - 1 Kings 4:26 NIV

"Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in
the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem."
- 2 Chronicles 9:25 NIV

Now take careful note of the wording. First of all,
they changed it so both (1 Kings 4:26 & 2 Chr 9:25)
read, "four thousand", calling it a scribal error.
That change is the due to the translators of the NIV.
And notice that it reads, "twelve thousand horses",
instead of, "twelve thousand horsemen". That item is
due to the corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.

Also note that the word in 2 Chr 9:25 was changed from
"horsemen", to "horses". Also, the part about, "and
with the king" is omitted. These items are due to the
corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.

In the NIV, for example, it is obvious that there are
indeed contradictions and when you have people reading
a Bible with contradictions, due to corruption and
intentional word changing on the part of the
translators, it is no surprise that they would begin to
doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible and we all know
where that eventually leads. They are forced to make
excuses for the text and come up with crazy
explanations, that atheists know better than to accept
and it eats away at the believer, little by little.
Doubt festers, unless PROPERLY dealt with and that can
only be done with truth and not with crazy
explanations, or by stating that there are "scribal
errors", etc. If there's a scribal error there, where
else is there one? The fact is, that the NIV creates a
contradiction where there is none, thinking they are
correcting something. But who are they, to correct the
word of God? They'd rather use a corrupt text for
translation and then make even more changes. And this
is the Bible you promote? (:


>Also I have found many differences between the NIV, KJV, and NKJV
>regarding the naming of certain animals and insects. In some instances
>both the NKJV and NIV agreed on a name for an animal or insect that the
>KJV differed. Looking at the original text, and a imagery bible
>dictionary I've discovered that the KJV was incorrect in these passages.
>Unfortunately I did not write down every instance of a misnaming for an
>animal or insect, because I know you will want it.

<laugh> Well, see if you can come up with one or two
and I'll look at them. Also bear in mind that they may
have been called something different in the days of
Elizabethan English. For example, "conversation", as
used in 1 Peter 3:1 in Elizabethan English, means
"lifestyle", or, "way of living".

Do people think those who support the KJV were born
with a knowledge of Elizabethan English? :) No, we
simply took the time to learn, because we felt it was
that important. The pure word of God was more
important than the time it took to learn. We can play
XBox later. :)



Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


"Prevent truth decay. Brush up on your Bible."



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John
2004-09-16 10:40:02 EST
In article <3k0jk09lu7sbc9hoq137e3ehmvsiree549@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

> Do people think those who support the KJV were born
> with a knowledge of Elizabethan English? :) No, we
> simply took the time to learn, because we felt it was
> that important. The pure word of God was more
> important than the time it took to learn. We can play
> XBox later. :)

Well even professors suggest that I do not read the NIV for serious
study. They'd never recommend a dynamic free translation over a strong
translation. You think the NIV is bad? Wait till you read the TNIV or
the Message! I worked for a large christian youth organization over the
summer, and I was forced into using the Message for my curriculum. The
head person told me that it releated better with the kids and it did not
take away salvation truths and I agreed with him on this. Your argument
would not have formed any ground with him,
because our ministry was to unbelievers, and as you know youth are not
scholars or even educated. "The majorirty of christians are uneducated"
as John MacArthur would say. Youth could never read the KJV and
understand it is what he would say. However I would suggest that they
read it in the 1950's and understood it. Why cant they do it know?


John
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it's taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can't afford
John Kerry in the White House!

John
2004-09-16 10:42:36 EST
Well when I get time I'll look up these animal/insect verses. I found a
half dozen in the research of an exegetical paper once. But I did not
write them down, since I had no one that was KJV only that I was
debating with at that time. Everyone agrees that the NIV is a Godly
translation. It has problems, just like the KJV.

John



> <laugh> Well, see if you can come up with one or two
> and I'll look at them. Also bear in mind that they may
> have been called something different in the days of
> Elizabethan English. For example, "conversation", as
> used in 1 Peter 3:1 in Elizabethan English, means
> "lifestyle", or, "way of living".
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it's taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can't afford
John Kerry in the White House!

Pastor Dave
2004-09-16 18:48:40 EST
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:40:02 -0700, John
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> screamed out:

>In article <3k0jk09lu7sbc9hoq137e3ehmvsiree549@4ax.com>,
> Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Do people think those who support the KJV were born
>> with a knowledge of Elizabethan English? :) No, we
>> simply took the time to learn, because we felt it was
>> that important. The pure word of God was more
>> important than the time it took to learn. We can play
>> XBox later. :)
>
>Well even professors suggest that I do not read the NIV for serious
>study. They'd never recommend a dynamic free translation over a strong
>translation. You think the NIV is bad? Wait till you read the TNIV or
>the Message! I worked for a large christian youth organization over the
>summer, and I was forced into using the Message for my curriculum. The
>head person told me that it releated better with the kids and it did not
>take away salvation truths and I agreed with him on this. Your argument
>would not have formed any ground with him,

Then he is not interested in the truth. He doesn't
care if he feeds people a false Gospel. You could read
a JW Bible to people and there's enough Gospel in there
to get them saved and it reads easy, so why doesn't he
recommend that one? Gee, I guess that one is just a
bit too mangled even for him. So hey, let's feed the
kids that rat poison, right? (:


> because our ministry was to unbelievers, and as you know youth are not
>scholars or even educated. "The majorirty of christians are uneducated"
>as John MacArthur would say. Youth could never read the KJV and
>understand it is what he would say. However I would suggest that they
>read it in the 1950's and understood it. Why cant they do it know?

Stupidity and arrogance and a desire to serve self. I
speak of their parents.



Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John
2004-09-17 10:30:30 EST
In article <nt5kk05kfv95uobo2et376rsgvdejc66nj@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Then he is not interested in the truth. He doesn't
> care if he feeds people a false Gospel. You could read
> a JW Bible to people and there's enough Gospel in there
> to get them saved and it reads easy, so why doesn't he
> recommend that one? Gee, I guess that one is just a
> bit too mangled even for him. So hey, let's feed the
> kids that rat poison, right? (:

Dave what type of church are you a pastor at? If you are a pastor it
seems to be a very conservative church. This is the kind of church that
I am attending. Its not so popular among the students, but the bible is
clearly taught. Our pastor prefers the KJV translation, but he does not
condem the NIV and NASB.

Well Dave I hate to say it but many ministry organizations are more
interested in good morals over truth. It amazes me that this
organization that I worked for also works with some word of faith
churches. Churches that claim revelation is still being told to us
today. Churches that claim that the bible is not all of Gods truth
being told to us. God still is revealing it. And churches that believe
in the signs and wonders movement. They respected this church, because
of the good morals, and powerful influence their church has on the
community. This word of faith church also claims to be able to raise the
dead. What heretics! I may be unpopular taking a stance against them,
but neither was the apostle Paul.

>
>
> > because our ministry was to unbelievers, and as you know youth are not
> >scholars or even educated. "The majorirty of christians are uneducated"
> >as John MacArthur would say. Youth could never read the KJV and
> >understand it is what he would say. However I would suggest that they
> >read it in the 1950's and understood it. Why cant they do it know?
>
> Stupidity and arrogance and a desire to serve self. I
> speak of their parents.


I agree 100%. People today are going from bad to worse all the time!
--
Vote George W. Bush in the November election!
http://www.georgewbush.com
Whether it's taxes, jobs, health care, energy,
or national security: America can't afford
John Kerry in the White House!
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron