Kjvo And Original Languages

[Nom de Plume]

You're right but you've misunderstood the post.  This fellow accused me of being unloving and not following after Christ which is what liberals do when they feel threatened.  In my original post, I was exhorting him, cheering him on, not rebuking.

 

Now in post #149 he's slandering me again.  I don't care in the least, but you do.

 

In post #119 NDP says "To be honest I think she understands the Gospel and that she is saved."  So in this post we learn that NDP preaches to these folks but has not directly witnessed or questioned the lady, right? right.

 

My response in post #120 says "So what are you two waiting for?  Witness to the lady and find out." and for that I'm called names by NDP and eventually rebuked by you.  

 

 

Actually, in this post you assume that I have not directly witnessed to this lady. I hope in posts I made after that I made it clear that I have witnessed to this woman and most all others I have met there with the exception of one gentleman and one other lady that only came once a couple months ago and I have not seen since.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood your post and also for my lack of clarity in early posts on this thread. That is one of the prOBlems with online forums. Without visual and aural communication present, there is often misunderstanding amongst the participants. I aplogize for any miscommunicaiton on my part.

 

God bless.

[HappyChristian]

You're right but you've misunderstood the post.  This fellow accused me of being unloving and not following after Christ which is what liberals do when they feel threatened.  In my original post, I was exhorting him, cheering him on, not rebuking. Cheering him? Well, if you say so.  It didn't sound like that to me. Forgive me for misunderstanding what seemed like a slam rather than a cheer.

 

Now in post #149 he's slandering me again.  I don't care in the least, but you do. Post 149 was made by Ukelelemike, not NDP. And I believe it was a humorous post in response to the words "jibber jabber" in your post that he quoted...not a slander at all.   

 

In post #119 NDP says "To be honest I think she understands the Gospel and that she is saved."  So in this post we learn that NDP preaches to these folks but has not directly witnessed or questioned the lady, right? right.  No, we don't see that.  You assumed it. 

 

My response in post #120 says "So what are you two waiting for?  Witness to the lady and find out." and for that I'm called names by NDP and eventually rebuked by you.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

You accused him of slandering you in post 128, and called him a liberal and an unloving hypocrite. Perhaps, instead, you could have shown some graciousness to a noOB and let him know you had intended to be cheering him on rather than being snide (which is how I took it anyway...based on previous posts in other threads).  THAT is what I said I'm tired of and to stop.  And I stand by that.  OBviously things do too bother you, or you wouldn't call people liberals and hypocrites without really knowing anything about them.

[swathdiver]

Actually, in this post you assume that I have not directly witnessed to this lady. I hope in posts I made after that I made it clear that I have witnessed to this woman and most all others I have met there with the exception of one gentleman and one other lady that only came once a couple months ago and I have not seen since.

 

I apologize if I misunderstood your post and also for my lack of clarity in early posts on this thread. That is one of the prOBlems with online forums. Without visual and aural communication present, there is often misunderstanding amongst the participants. I aplogize for any miscommunicaiton on my part.

 

God bless.

 

That's right NDP, cause was given to make this assumption because of your talking to the other preacher about her.  And yes, subsequent posts make clear that you have indeed directly and personally witnessed to this lady.

 

I hope you'll forgive me for acting like a bull in a china shop.  I'm a work in progress.  Preaching to the old folks is good and honoring, keep at it.

[swathdiver]

You accused him of slandering you in post 128, and called him a liberal and an unloving hypocrite. Perhaps, instead, you could have shown some graciousness to a noOB and let him know you had intended to be cheering him on rather than being snide (which is how I took it anyway...based on previous posts in other threads).  THAT is what I said I'm tired of and to stop.  And I stand by that.  OBviously things do too bother you, or you wouldn't call people liberals and hypocrites without really knowing anything about them.

 

 

  

[HappyChristian]

 

  

Of course no comment.  Even though you accused him of slandering you in post 149 and it wasn't even his post...  

[Arbo]

I admit that I am a bit surprised that this thread is still active considering the number of those who hold to KJO.

[HappyChristian]

I admit that I am a bit surprised that this thread is still active considering the number of those who hold to KJO.

It has gone quite off the rails of what you started, hasn't it?  Although I don't know why holding to only the KJB would mean closing it?

[Arbo]

You're right, I'm slandered regularly,...

No offense intended, but you invite negative comments at times. Yours seems to be thinned-skinned victimhood.

[Arbo]

It has gone quite off the rails of what you started, hasn't it?  Although I don't know why holding to only the KJB would mean closing it?

I admit to posting before reading the last 'salvo'.

[swathdiver]

Of course no comment.  Even though you accused him of slandering you in post 149 and it wasn't even his post...  

 

No comment because you are wrong on so many points, it's embarrassing.  My computer shows #149 attributed to NDP.  

 

Just let it go, NDP and I have made things right between us.

[HappyChristian]

No comment because you are wrong on so many points, it's embarrassing.  My computer shows #149 attributed to NDP.  

 

Just let it go, NDP and I have made things right between us.

I am wrong at times - and I admit when I am.  I'm not wrong on this one, though.  I don't know why your computer shows NDP. Mine shows Ukelelemike.  I'm glad you've made it right between you.  Cautionary words here: watch how you "speak" to folks and mayhap you won't be "slandered" or misunderstood.

[candlelight]

Several years ago, I used to witness in a nursing home.  I had contact with many Roman Catholic people, including my aunt.  It is wise to know that not all RC's are devout in the RCC faith.  As stated by NDP they are just reciting what they heard in the RCC, just the same as we are do the IFB faith.  The man made RCC rules are just a part of them.  I led my aunt and another RC woman to Jesus Christ.  The Lord had been working on my aunt since my church had a building in our hometown.  She loved to get Gospel tracts and read them.  I gave her a KJV Bible when she was at the nursing home.  It was there, that I lead her to Christ.
 

Also, I had been witnessing to another RC woman.  I found her in her wheelchair, one day, wandering the halls of the nursing home.  I asked her what was wrong.  She said she wanted to see Jesus.  She told me that she was trying to find the picture of Jesus they had on the wall in one of the wards.  I took her over to the picture and led her to Christ.  The next day, I went to volunteer and she wasn't there.  They told me she passed on in the middle of the night.  I knew she was in heaven.  It brought much peace to my heart.

My church has a ministry with 4 nursing homes, in my area.  We see many elderly people trust Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, every week.  One of the men, in the church, gives the message and then the invitation.  The choir sings, as well.  The children, teens and adults talk with the elderly.  It is a blessing to be able to see these precious people come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  

[Genevanpreacher]

 

If the KJV uses the word wine to describe alcoholic and nonalcoholic grape juice, and the difference is significant,  then why did the translators not make a distinction between the two?

 

Again, I use this as an example because it is the best, most common one that comes to mind.

 

If it weren't 'alcoholic', why would it be an accusation against Jesus, if he was accused of being a 'drinker' of wine?

Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34.

 

Proverbs 23:20 - Sources the phrase as 'alcoholic'.

[No Nicolaitans]

If it weren't 'alcoholic', why would it be an accusation against Jesus, if he was accused of being a 'drinker' of wine?

Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34.

 

Proverbs 23:20 - Sources the phrase as 'alcoholic'.

 

Because he was...just as you say...accused.

 

They hated him...they wanted to discredit him...they wanted him dead...when he finally went to "trial", numerous false witnesses were brought against him. An accusation is just that...an accusation...it doesn't mean that the accusation is true or even has merit.

 

I've been accused here (in the past) of not really believing the King James Bible is God's word because I see nothing wrong with referencing Greek or Hebrew. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

If you want to discredit someone (as they did Jesus), one of the best ways to do that is to tear down their character. 

[DaveW]

They also accused Him in those passages of being gluttonous.

Do you think He was that also?