the King James Version

#1 06-26-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

It was disposed of primarily because neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from it. It contains nonsense such as driving demons away with the smell of rotting fish, or salt. And how dove's dung healed a man of blindness as the dung fell from the sky onto his eyes. It has books that deal with paying money to get souls out of purgatory.

What of the books that remain in the bible that speak of proper "etiquette" for treating female prisoners, including the proper way to discard them if you don't like them? I consider that nonsense too (And I could have been a LOT more blunt there).

mfblume · #2 06-26-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

What of the books that remain in the bible that speak of proper "etiquette" for treating female prisoners, including the proper way to discard them if you don't like them? I consider that nonsense too (And I could have been a LOT more blunt there).

Please clarify this for us. Are you saying that within the 66 books of the bible we have of Old and New Testaments, you believe there is nonsense in them?

#3 06-26-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Please clarify this for us. Are you saying that within the 66 books of the bible we have of Old and New Testaments, you believe there is nonsense in them?

Yes I do... instructions in the Old Testament for raping female prisoners of war and taking them as slaves... that's nonsense to me.

And if the Acrophya was accepted as part of the Bible before the New Testament at one point and now it is not, doesn't that still mean that something changed in the Bible?

berkeley · #4 06-26-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Yes I do... instructions in the Old Testament for raping female prisoners of war and taking them as slaves... that's nonsense to me.

And if the Acrophya was accepted as part of the Bible before the New Testament at one point and now it is not, doesn't that still mean that something changed in the Bible?

The Jews rejected the Septuagint.

mfblume · #5 06-26-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Yes I do... instructions in the Old Testament for raping female prisoners of war and taking them as slaves... that's nonsense to me.

(Man, brother! You make some strong statements here. Are you presently serving God? I am not trying to be rude or joking, just sincerely wondering about your stand on Christianity in general. Call me naive, but I need to know how you are standing as far as Christianity is concerned. I do not know you, so just wondering. I never heard of sincere practicing believers who say part of the old and new testaments is nonsense.)

Show me what verses you are speaking about.

Quote:

And if the Acrophya was accepted as part of the Bible before the New Testament at one point and now it is not, doesn't that still mean that something changed in the Bible?

No. You are not reading my words. The whole issue on preference of KJV versus other versions is the veracity of the differences in the New Testament ALONE.

#6 06-26-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

(Man, brother! You make some strong statements here. Are you presently serving God? I am not trying to be rude or joking, just sincerely wondering about your stand on Christianity in general. Call me naive, but I need to know how you are standing as far as Christianity is concerned. I do not know you, so just wondering. I never heard of sincere practicing believers who say part of the old and new testaments is nonsense.)
Show me what verses you are speaking about.

Deut. 21 10-14, and I think Rico put it best when he said I was having a crisis of faith. I was raised in the UPC but have a lot of questions that no one seem to take seriously... people seem to think I am joking when I ask them.

Quote:

No. You are not reading my words. The whole issue on preference of KJV versus other versions is the veracity of the differences in the New Testament ALONE.

So the Old Testament was not translated into Elizabethian English in 1611? And The Acrophya was not removed?

Timmy · #7 06-26-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

. . . have a lot of questions that no one seem to take seriously...

Tell me about it!

mfblume · #8 06-26-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Deut. 21 10-14, and I think Rico put it best when he said I was having a crisis of faith. I was raised in the UPC but have a lot of questions that no one seem to take seriously... people seem to think I am joking when I ask them.

I do not think you're joking. I am just wondering about your confidence in God. If it has been hurt, then this explains your statements.

I trust God. So when it comes to questions I have in the bible, I trust there is a good answer although I may not know what it may be at the time. So I have faith in the Word of God, as well. It worked for me when I obeyed it, and so when questions arise I have confidence there is a good answer and patiently study to see what the answer is.

Quote:

So the Old Testament was not translated into Elizabethian English in 1611? And The Acrophya was not removed?

Again, the issue is NEW TESTAMENT DIFFERENCES and their veracity. That is why people discuss KJV versus other versions.

mfblume · #9 06-26-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Deu 21:10-14 KJV When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. (14) And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

First of all she shall not be treated like a slave... "make merchandise of her". And releasing her was through a bill of divorcement. In her case and the man's, there was kindness involved. He would take her to wife, and she was allowed time to determine if she would return affection to him. If not, this was part of the reason for her release. And he could do the same after time, but by divorce alone.

crakjak · #10 06-26-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

First of all she shall not be treated like a slave... "make merchandise of her". And releasing her was through a bill of divorcement. In her case and the man's, there was kindness involved. He would take her to wife, and she was allowed time to determine if she would return affection to him. If not, this was part of the reason for her release. And he could do the same after time, but by divorce alone.

Hey, where did you pick up this part? The scripture presented it as his choice, after he had used her, he could decide if he really wanted her? Seems like a shoe try it on, wear it, then if you don't like it just throw it out? The only consideration for her was that she could not be sold as a slave.

Certainly doesn't seem fair or Godly, but so goes many things in the OT?

I don't think we can be like some of the scribes in copying the texts, and change it to reflect how we think it should be presented can we? It says what it says or else you can listen to some of the critics the text and see if the "oldest and best text" agree or not?