Rene'
-
Posts
204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Rene'
-
-
I've read online that you should take their age in months and then add one, and that's how many hours they should be able to hold it - so, 3 hours? That was not true for my puppy (who is 4 1/2 months now) at night though, I think by 9 or 10 weeks she was holding it for about 7 hours at night, but we've had her and been "potty training" since she was 3 weeks.
I do think in this case it might be mostly an internal clock on her part. :)
-
Nope. DH and I don't 'do' the boycott thing.
As Christians, we still have to live IN the world. There's no point in boycotting a business because it supports some worldly thing. Of course it does. Honestly, you'd have to boycott every non-Christian owned business to really be sticking to your principles there. And we're just not called to do that.
Just my $0.02.
:iagree:
-
I would start taking her out of the crate before she whines, like at 11:30 or so, to break the habit of her giving the signal. After a week or so back the time up to 11:15, then 11 pm. I think eventually she won't be in the habit of getting out at midnight. How old is she?
-
I buy alum at Walmart and my Mom buys it at Kroger. We keep it on hand for canker sores.
-
I prefer my Kitchen Aid mixer. It's not the super expensive lovely one, I think the bowl is just 4 1/2 or 5 quarts, but I use it to make all kinds of dough and then shape it myself. Personally I never liked the way my bread turned out in a bread machine or having the hole from the little paddle, and with the KA I can do cookies, cakes, icing, etc. as well. :)
-
We know that it is God's will for Mt. 24:14 to be fulfilled, and that it won't all be done with the KJV translation for obvious reasons. I am just sharing this to try and widen the perspective with which we consider this question of KJV only. I believe that the scene in heaven of the richness of every language being represented in worshipping God will be completely awe-inspiring...
Oh, and I agree that the poetry in the KJV is beautiful, BTW! And some may successfully argue that the KJV is the best translation in English. But to broaden the argument, we know that the KJV cannot be the best translation for people groups in a remote part of Russia, for example. And the expression of the gospel translations from this part of the world will be glorious and beautiful in heaven some day as part of that Revelation multitude that no one can number from every tribe.... praising God. AMEN!
I completely agree with you!!
Maybe I should phrase it this way - The King James Bible is the only Bible for ME. I trust it, I let it define my beliefs, and I don't believe there are contradictions. My husband and I have studied both sides of the argument, I do understand how some will study it further and come out on the opposite side.
It *would* make it easier to discuss doctrine and theology with others if all English speaking believers used the same Bible, but the fact is that they don't. But hey, even those who are KJO do not hold to the same beliefs. I do not believe man is born with a sin nature or that Adam's nature changed when he sinned, because the KJB does not say this anywhere, but most Christians do whether they are KJO or not.
However, the Gospel is present in ALL bibles, and God will make His truth known to those who seek Him. :001_smile:
-
Wycliffe's bible was not used in translating the King James. The Bishop's Bible was the main reference' date=' and the translators were to refer to Tydale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible and Geneva when they agreed better with the text than the Bishop's.[/quote']I know that. :D I guess I did not make that point clear earlier? My apologies.
I made the point earlier about Wycliffe being the first English Bible translated by hand. Hope that makes sense.
Ah, got it. :001_smile: Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
I dab on plain ACV - Bragg's, and it works great for me. My husband doesn't like smelling like vinegar so he uses Eden Salve or a hydrocortisone cream.
-
Um, didn't Jesus speak Aramaic, not greek? So no, I don't think he used the same greek word.
We don't have any copies of the gospels written in Aramaic, and there might not have ever been any. I'm one who believes that translations can be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit so I have no problem saying Jesus used the same word in both instances. It's clear from the text, whether "minister" or "servant" or "diakonos" or something else, that Jesus was reiterating the same statement.
Since the translators used both "minister" and "servant" in those two instances with Jesus, there is no reason to assume that something different is being said about Phoebe than what is said about the other "ministers". It's clear from the text that she was on some sort of trip as a minister of the Lord and the saints were to assist her in her business while among them.
-
Jesus actually said "diakonos" in both of these instances. The translators chose to use different words. I believe, according to context and the meaning of diakonos, that "servant" would be the best translation of what Jesus said in both verses.
That was my point. Obviously, the two words, Biblically, are pretty synonymous. When "minister" is used here for "diakonos" it is not a "Minister" like we think of today.
-
When Paul uses the term or a derivative it is translated as servant only when referring to a woman.
Epaphras, our dear sundoulous (fellow servant), is a faithful diakonos (translated minister) of Christ. --Colossians 1:7
I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a diakonos (translated servant) of the church in Cenchrea, --Romans 16:1
I don't really see the problem. Jesus does the same thing - same Greek word used as minister and then as servant.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
-
Technically an Orthodox believer cannot answer this question in the affirmative as it goes against our theology. The only true Word of God is Jesus. On this point you have brushed up against one of the very stubborn areas in EO.
I remember my Priest was leading a catechumen class and there was a Pentecostal woman attending. The first time she referred to the Bible as the Word of God he very gently informed her that in Orthodoxy Jesus is the Word of God. She would not stop. I watched him maintain his cool, but every time (which was a lot) she would say, "the Word of God." He would interject, "Jesus." The woman ended up not being able to have a decent conversation and it was really quite sad. It was also very informative as to how far into the realm of "bad" theology this thought could take a person. ;)
I understand. I, too, believe that Jesus is the Word.
Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Is there any bible that Mommaduck believes to be the "words" of God, translated correctly, that she can read and trust that what is says is worded in the way God wants it and is truth?
-
The KJV is simply a by-product of Wycliffe (King James had numerous scholars -- including Catholic Rheims scholars work on the KJV -- using the Wycliffe partially as it was translated from the Latin Vulgate) and Tyndale's (Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic translations) work ...
Wycliffe's bible was not used in translating the King James. The Bishop's Bible was the main reference, and the translators were to refer to Tydale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible and Geneva when they agreed better with the text than the Bishop's.
...the hybrid of Anglican and Catholic church arguing and finally in agreement on an "official" Bible to be in English translation.:confused:
-
To be honest, sometimes they were translated to say what the translators wanted them to say. I don't consider the KJV to be accurate though (I've come a long way away from my KJVO roots though, through much study).
I don't pretend to understand all the in's and out's of translating from Hebrew or Greek into English. I do know that I can look at the Textus Receptus and see some slight variations in the Greek words that have the same root meaning but are translated into different English words. As I have let the King James Bible define my theology, rather than the other way around, I've seen a wonderful picture expand out before me. Everything makes sense in a way it did not before, everything fits in to place.
Do you have any bible that you believe to be the true Word of God?
-
:iagree:Reminds me of the word diakonos which Paul used 34 times and only one of those times is it translated servant.
This is not true.
-
I didn't state it in my post, but :iagree:(for the record I don't find KJ difficult). -
The problem with the Gap Theory is that it is racist, has been discredited, and was never held by the historical churches.
I just have to say that I have never come across any racist information in all my studies of the Gap/Ruin-Reconstruction Theory. What you quote below is something I have never encountered before and do not believe.
The earth is found in Gen 1:2 in a state of destruction, without form and void and covered in water. No pre-adamic creatures would have survived the destruction. The bible doesn't say, but I personally do not believe Adam and Eve were Caucasian. And I would think, especially in America, most of us are of mixed race now-days. My husband is part Native American. I don't know what I am. :lol:n 1655, Frenchman Isaac La Peyrère published his theory that not only did Adam come from pre-Adamic stock (rather than being formed by God from the dust of the ground), but also Cain’s wife and the inhabitants of Cain’s city came from other pre-Adamic stockIn the 18th and 19th centuries, because white and non-white people looked superficially different, a minority of Christians thought that God had created non-whites separately from Adam, and so they must have descended from pre-Adamic creatures. Hence pre-Adamism took the form of polygenism, or multiple creations of different races. Proponents of this idea often thought that non-whites were inferior beings who could be treated as slaves. Pre-Adamism thus became the scientific justification for slavery, and a defense for racism.
I just want to say that it's not this word alone that the Gap Theory hangs on. It is many many things in the Bible.A “mistranslation†has contributed to the case for this misinterpretation. In the King James Version of the Bible, God says to Adam, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.†Proponents of the Gap Theory emphasize the word “replenish.â€
If the bolded above were true then the word "fill" would not be present in the Old Testament and in fact every time it would say "replenish". That is not the case.They interpret the text as saying that Adam and Eve were to refill the Earth. They were to fill it again. The problem with this view is that, regardless of what it says in English translations, the Hebrew word is mâlê’, and it simply means “to fill†or “to be full.†Moreover, the English translators of the King James Version knew the word means “to fill.†They chose “replenish†because, in 17th-century Elizabethan English, “replenish†meant “to fill†(similar to how in modern English the word “replete†doesn’t mean to “abound again,†it simply means “abundant†or “aboundingâ€). Language is not static, but dynamic. Words change meaning over time. Today “replenish†means “to fill again.†It didn’t mean the same thing in 17th century England. Nearly all modern translations translate mâlê’ as simply “fill†in the passage in question (Genesis 1:28).The word mâlê' is found 241 times in the OT. It is translated as
- Filled 74 times
- Full 50 times
- Fill 33 times
- Fulfilled 20 times
- Fulfill 7 times
- Accomplished 6 times
- Wholly 6 times
- Replenished 5 times
- Set 5 times
- Consecrate 3 times
- Consecrated 3 times
- Expired 3 times
- Fully 3 times
- Filleth 3 times
- Gather 2 times
- Replenish 2 times
- Also translated as accomplish, become, confirm, end, fenced, filledst, fillest, fullness, furnish, gathered, handful, overfloweth, overflown, presume, satisfied, satisfy, and space.
Since we can see from above that one Hebrew word was translated into a myriad of English words, and I believe those English words are exactly what God wanted to say, I believe God was telling Noah, and Adam, to re-fill the earth. But again, that's not the only reason I believe in the Gap.Proponents of the Gap Theory respond by pointing out that God said to Noah after the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill [mâlê’] the earth†(Genesis 9:1). It is evident that Noah was meant to refill the earth after the flood. Can’t we then interpret the same command to Adam to mean the same thing—that Adam was to repopulate the earth after God’s judgment? The fact is that, regardless what the condition of the planet was before Noah’s flood, God didn’t tell Noah to “refill†the Earth. He simply said to fill it. God chose the words He chose and no others. If He said “refill,†that would have been something, but since He just said “fill,†that argument falls flat. - Filled 74 times
-
My DH was raised to believe (by his pastor father) that the KJV is the first complete translation of the Bible into English and therefore, we need no other English translations. I don't know if that is completely true, because I've honestly never researched it...
There were actually 9 other English Bibles before the King James.
-
Wycliffe (translated from the Latin Vulgate, complete in 1382)
-
Tyndale (first to translate NT from Greek to English, OT was not finished, Tyndale was burned to death in 1536)
-
Coverdale (Myles Coverdale - first to publish a complete English Bible, 1535)
-
Matthew (Thomas Matthew - a friend of Tyndale, he used Tyndale's unfinished works, using Coverdale's to fill in where necessary, revised it slightly and added introductions and chapter summaries. Interestingly, though Tyndale was killed for translating the bible into English, his work, due to Matthew, was circulated with the King's permission and authority. Published in 1537)
-
the Great Bible (This was the first "authorized" Bible - Thomas Cromwell instructed Myles Coverdale to revise the Matthew Bible and it's "controversial notes". It was called the Great Bible because it was very large. It was finished in April of 1539)
-
Taverner (Richard Taverner, a Greek scholar, also set about to revise the Matthew Bible at the same time as Coverdale.)
-
Geneva (Translated by William Whittingham while in Geneva, where the Reformers fled during Mary Tudor's reign, it was completed in 1560. The translation was superior to the Great Bible, but the notes made it unacceptable for official use in England.)
-
Bishop's (First Bible to be translated by a committee, published in 1568. Archbishop Matthew Parker served as the editor and most of the revisers were bishops, so it was called the Bishop's Bible.)
-
Douay-Rheims (First Catholic translation of the Bible in English. NT was finished in 1582, OT was not complete until 1610-11.)
Our church (which is not his father's) teaches that the KJV is the one and only "authorized" english version of the Bible (whatever that means). I have never asked anyone to explain it further, mostly because I didn't want to ruffle feathers and because I don't actually mind using the KJV, just want to know why so many are KJV-only.The title page of the King James Version published in 1611 contains the phrase "...by his Majesties special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches."
One thing that many do not know is the the King James Bible was not the idea of King James. It was presented to him by Dr. John Rainolds, a Puritan, at the Hampton Court Conference which took place not long after King James had been crowned King of England. A new translation of the bible was not even officially on the agenda.
On day 2 of the conference Rainolds presented the idea for a new translation of the Bible, stating that those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th were corrupt.
King James said that he "could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that of all, the Geneva is the worst." The King actually had no problem with the text of the Geneva, it was the notes he did not like. The Bishop of London then said that no notes were to be added to Rainold's new Bible.
It was already a common practice to authorize the use of one bible throughout the churches of England. The Bishop's bible was in use when the King James Bible was translated, it's understandable that the King James Bible would then become *the* bible used in the churches. It was not unlawful to read or teach from other bibles, however. Some of the translators are reported as quoting or preaching from some of the previous English bibles such as the Geneva or the Bishop's, as well as the King James.
When we first started attending this church four years ago, one of the deacons told me that they were, "KJV Only, but not KJV Ugly" (meaning they didn't condemn others for using something different, although they definitely teach that they believe that one should only use the KJV).I've never heard that phrase before but that describes us. I was not raised to be KJO. My husband was not either but he was KJO when I met him. My husband posts frequently on a bible forum and will use the ESV when he feels it will help others understand what he's trying to say better and with people who are against the KJ.
This post is already pretty long so I'll try to explain how I became KJO in a condense way. It started when I wondered about God telling Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, the same thing he told Noah after the flood. Everyone I talked to said either it was translated wrong and should say "fill" or "replenish" doesn't have to mean "to fill again". This bothered me a great deal and I began to think "how can we trust anything in the bible and know that it was translated correctly?"
Through my searching I discovered that the King James is correct, the word means "to fill up again" and I became a believer in the Gap Theory. I learned that the King James defines it's own words. I use a program like eSword to see how English words are used throughout the bible and let the Bible tell me what those words mean. I can also look up the Greek or Hebrew and see how those have been translated in to different English words.
Suddenly a whole bunch of stuff began to fall into place, like a puzzle being put together. Through the years I've learned to trust exactly how the King James Bible is translated. I believe it is not just "God's Word", but God's WordS for English speaking people.
It is translated from the Textus Receptus, which is also called the Majority Text because it's based on about 90% of the existing manuscripts. The Minority Text (from which the NIV is translated) is older, but it represents only about 5% of the existing manuscripts.
There were 47 scholars who worked for 7 years translating the Bible. King James referred to them as "learned men" and that was very much true. They were divided into 6 groups - 2 met at Westminster, 2 at Oxford, and 2 at Cambridge. Each group was given a portion to translate, after that work was done each portion was passed to the other five groups for review.
-
Wycliffe (translated from the Latin Vulgate, complete in 1382)
-
:grouphug:
Some things to look into:
T-Tapp Secret for a Flat Stomach
No Lipo Lipo (or google "knuckle massage")
-
How do you decide how much extra of your income to start throwing toward your debt?
I've been wanting to budget for years now and have finally been given the green light by dh. I want to set up an envelope system. Right now we are behind and in a bad situation financially, but once we are caught up and paying things on time, I want to start knocking out the credit card debt. It's just, how do I decide how much to put toward it when there are so many other things (like yearly expenses) that will need money set aside?
Also, dh's pay is irregular, which is one of the reasons he's resisted a budget so long. He did not see how we could budget when we never know what his pay will be from week to week.
-
What do your kids eat for breakfast and do they have problems doing school based on what they eat?
I grew up eating cereal or canned soup, or nothing (in high school) for breakfast and I made decent to good grades. I realize eating nothing was pretty dumb but when I did eat I found I was starving long before lunch, when I didn't eat breakfast I didn't feel hungry.
Anyway, my kids act like they can NOT do any school if they haven't had a large breakfast, but yet they get tired of eggs and frankly, I'm tired of cooking them. I'm not a morning cook type of person. If I feed them oatmeal or toast and nutella they say they can't think and focus.
They girls can cook their own eggs but, like I said, they get tired of eating them *and* cooking them and will then act like they can't do school.
So do you cook a large breakfast every morning? Can your children function on oatmeal or even cereal for breakfast?
-
Never, never, never. I hate that word with a passion.
-
I have a Swiffer Wet Jet - love it. I crocheted a washable pad that ties onto it, and I looked online and found how to unscrew the lid so I refill with my own cleaning solution. I've had it over two years and have not had to buy any pads or cleaner.
-
Already started knitting my Christmas gifts, but now I feel rushed.
What kind of gifts are you knitting?
If you've dealt with Keratosis Pilaris...
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
Gotu Kola is what worked for me. I started taking it for varicose veins and noticed within two weeks that my bumps were gone and my skin was incredibly soft and silky. I was taking 6 pills per day, 3 in the morning and 3 at night. They are 450mg per capsule. Now I just take 3 each night and my bumps are still gone.