Very open thread

I’m about to head out the door to the airport, so you’ll have to continue to chat amongst yourselves … there’s some stuff here, here, here, and here (h/t, NG).

Email this Post

Comments

  1. Dixie D wrote:

    Does anyone know who Debbie Bennett Roger’s widow) is marrying? She mentioned in her “Midnight Meditations” that she is getting married again. Anyone we know?

  2. DMP wrote:

    Okay, I know I have asked this before, but I am a little confused. The entire Gaither Vocal Band album Reunited is on YouTube. No video, just a still shot of the group and every song. How is this legal when file sharing is not?

  3. Kyle wrote:

    Technically speaking, it’s not designed to be downloaded, only viewed. That doesn’t mean you CAN’T download it, but YouTube is designed to be streaming. Still, it is questionable.

  4. wackythinker wrote:

    DMP — I guess it depends on who posted the album on YouTube. If someone in an official capacity with the Gaither organization did it, to try to attract attention to the project, then it’s perfectly legal.

    If a fan posted it, maybe not. “Legality is in the eye of the holder.”

  5. quartet-man wrote:

    It depends on the copyright holder too. Some overlook it assuming it is good publicity. Others just don’t search it and are aware of it. Others, are diligent and scour You Tube for things and insist they are taken down.

  6. Julie D wrote:

    A friend of mine gave me about 10 years worth of Singing News for free. I like that route better.

  7. art wrote:

    I read the nice obit of former gospel singer and congressman Bill Hefner in the November Singing News. He seems to have been a highly respected fellow, according to the article written by his brother. After reading it, I wondered about his party affiliation, which I must’ve missed in the SN article. For the record, Wikipedia says he was a Democrat.

  8. Bryce wrote:

    Speaking of open threads, I’m curious about Avery posts that remain open but are dormant for months at a time. Several of these have become active again recently, frequently as the result of single posts by “joyful noisers” who seem unaware that they’ve come late to the party. I wonder if they even bother to look at the date of the last comment before they post. It seems unlikely that they’d be bumping the thread with the intent of keeping it alive.

  9. Andrew S. wrote:

    Has anyone read the new AnnD book? I would like to know a little more info about it before I purchase it. By the way, does anyone have any of those older SN magazines in decent condition for really cheap??

  10. John wrote:

    Bill Hefner was quite respected in North Carolina. Wikipedia is correct. He was our Democratic Congressional representative. Bill was certainly one of the good guys, and I’ll miss him. We often talked about the political climate in North Carolina when I would see him at the Grand Ole Gospel Reunion.

  11. Tom wrote:

    Maybe the following will entice NQC to stay in Louisville just a little longer:

    http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/articles/louisville-ads-draw-criticism

    You know how frisky some of those NQC attendees can be.

    I’d like Indianapolis for NQC. I grew up just outside Indianapolis. It’s a great city, with a clean and safe downtown and top-notch facilities. But it seems just a bit far-flung from the geographic base of southern gospel music. Of course, cruises are geographically far-flung as well, and they seem to do well….

  12. Nashville Phil wrote:

    Look, I don’t want to beat a dead horse, however, I discovered this on “Ripoff Report” regarding those “fine Christian” folks the Unthanks.

    https://www.ripoffreport.com/Festivals-Event-Services/Deon-Unthank/deon-unthank-sogospelnews-com-deeea.htm

    Defend those peeps now…

  13. NG wrote:

    #12: This forum has a discussion on whether ripoffreport is a scam since it allows people to say whatever they want about businesses as there is no fact checking.

    http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33751

  14. Nashville Phil wrote:

    And?

  15. GM wrote:

    #12 You are “beating a dead horse”. Was this new open thread the place to “beat the dead horse” from another thread?

  16. GM wrote:

    I am going to see Greater Vision, Triumphant Quartet and the Collingsworth Family next Saturday night. This will be my first time seeing GV with the new tenor. It will also be my first time seeing Triumphant and the Collingsworth’s live in concert. I have seen both on the NQC live feed and on you tube. I am hoping GV will spend more time singing than talking/preaching/telling jokes, and that the other two groups will recieve adequate time on stage. We plan on arriving in Lancaster early so we can enjoy one of the local Amish family style resturants; a real treat!

  17. newlywedgirl wrote:

    I was wondering the same thing about Debbie Bennett, Dixie. I am so happy for her!!!

    Is LordSong still traveling or is it just “Sisters”

  18. GM wrote:

    Lordsong (and Stan Whitmire) do quite a few dates with Mark Lowry when he is not with Gaither.

  19. scope wrote:

    Michael sings with Lordsong part time. He is working on several other projects.

  20. Mika wrote:

    In regards to the first “here” and a look-through of the “Church’s” website:
    My favorite spot is about 3/4 down the page and in refererence to on the Crabb band boys:

    “One of the guys in the group has long hair which is sinful.” - http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/subpage194.html

    I think this church’s God, might by my church’s Devil.

  21. Revpaul wrote:

    #14 Nashville Phil.
    Your meager “And?” seems to indicate that you care little about the questionable reputation of the ripoff site itself or with the accuracy of the “report” posted there by “Tracy of Byron, Ga.” I have had a happy association with the Unthanks for several years and have happily and successfully advertised with them. Believe the Ripoff smear or believe me. Your choice.

  22. Pedantic wrote:

    Kicking myself for throwing away 10 years worth of SInging News Magazines about 6 months ago

  23. JBB wrote:

    Would someone please answer the question about Debbie Bennett…It’s so exciting, not that I would know him.

  24. Knows Nothing wrote:

    #18 are you sure about Lordsong?

  25. AT wrote:

    I just wish Amy and Chris would stop blogging about food and asking people to take them to eat. They never open their mouth without looking for food. And has anyone ever noticed the Unthanks look just like Family Guy
    http://media.photobucket.com/image/family%20guy/feministing/family-guy.jpg

  26. Andrew S. wrote:

    Yes, the largest project Mike is working on is a men’s hunting/outdoors type of retreat or tv show. At least that’s what I heard via Kim or one of the other Sisters.

  27. Nashville Phil wrote:

    #25 Ha Ha…I swear that photo looks just like them…That right there is funny stuff!!!

  28. Edward B. Robinson wrote:

    I have never been a big fan of ladies’ trios in southern gospel music. But I will have to say that hearing “Sisters” has given me a deeper appreciation for the quality that can be conveyed when three ladies join their hearts and voices in providing quality music. I just purchased their 2 cds off of their website, and I am in awe of the quality and diversity of their music. Orchestration, arrangements, lyrics — everything is outstanding. I thoroughly enjoyed “Lordsong,” but I think “Sisters” may be even better (and that says a lot!) I pray that they will remain in the southern gospel realm (and I know that they’re not totally accepted there) and not move into a more contemporary direction.

  29. Edward B. Robinson wrote:

    What is the status of “The Prophets Quartet?” I know that at one time, they were making a comeback, but I didn’t know if it was for a fulltime, part-time, or limited-time schedule. I was impressed with the lineup of artists in the group, especially Ed Hill and Bill Baize, and I’m hoping that they’re still together.

  30. Irishlad wrote:

    #9Ann’s book should be with me in a few days,i’ll let you know on this thread.

  31. scope wrote:

    Michael wrote this on his Facebook page:

    Enquiring Minds want to know???
    Many of you have voiced concern about Sisters verses LordSong. I want to tell you that there is no verses anything when it comes to LordSong or Sisters. Sisters uses LordSong equipment when they sing with the exception of a sound system and the old LordSong trailer. They use our vehicles, our phone number, and our concert platform to promote Sisters. Sisters will travel one weekend a month, unless Kim and I make the decision for more or less travel. LordSong has to be the priority for Michael and Kim. We have obligations that do not allow for LordSong to deviate from its current form. The only thing that will change the future of LordSong, is the Lord Himself saying change direction. If He does…We will follow Him, no questions asked!

    New Thing
    I want you to pray about Michael Lord Outdoors. I have started a new ministry that is geared toward the outdoor community. I am a closet “Red Neck!” I love to hunt, fish, and hang out with folks who love the great outdoors. On the weekend that the Sisters are traveling, I am out with cameras shooting video of the hunting or fishing trip I am on. This past week I filmed my first fishing segment and it was awesome. The pilot will be finished very shortly and ready for the world to see. My vision for Michael Lord Outdoors is simple…To reach people in the Woods, on the Water, and in their Hearts, with the message of Jesus. Pray for the start of this great ministry opportunity. I really think I’m onto something…Pray for the Sisters, they are chasing their dream too.

    If you want to read more, join Friends of LordSong on Facebook. Hope this clears up any questions about LordSong/Sisters.

  32. quartet-man wrote:

    #31 Actually, Michael is wrong. There are first and second verses, sometimes even third. ;-)

  33. wanderer wrote:

    I have a couple years of the Gospel Voice. One of those years still has all the posters intact that they issued with the magazine (including a very nice one of J-D Sumner). Wonder if those are worth anything?

  34. Irishlad wrote:

    Just dug out an old Anchormen cassette from 1997 called “Anticipation” Steve Ladd on tenor and Jeff Chapman on bass.The thing is Steve is almost unrecognizable on it.I know it’s at least 10 yrs since i have heard it but he sounds like a totally different person.JP is probably the closest thing to Tim Riley,then and now.Do they share vocal cords?

  35. quartet-man wrote:

    #33,not at all. They are worthless. I would be happy to dispose of them for you. ;-)

  36. Extra Ink wrote:

    The Palmetto State Quartet will be singing back-up vocals for Wynona Judd on her Christmas tour this year. I think her step-Dad sings with PSQ.

  37. Rob wrote:

    A very interesting post on www.southerngospelblog.com about the production of the NQC live series. Chris White answers a lot of questions that has been asked about these videos.

  38. Charlie wrote:

    to me this “bible burners” are just as crazy as the Taliban

  39. Hi wrote:

    #38, Well either you believe the Bible or you don’t. It’s not complicated, and it’s not jihad.

  40. RF wrote:

    #38 Charlie:

    True dat. Remind me of a long time ago when I entered my parents’ Baptist church with longer hair and a plaid suit and they ushered me out (it was the 70’s). The damage they did to me made me shun religion for a long time. People just do not know how they damage what the Lord wanted us to do with archiac ideas and beliefs. Like you say, sort of like the Taliban.

  41. Lewis Wells wrote:

    Charlie…I agree. And just as dangerous, even if covertly so.

  42. Butch wrote:

    I never did get the KJV only thing. Could someone please explain that one to me? Do these people accept versions translated in other languages w/o thees and thous?

  43. Lewis Wells wrote:

    Butch…It goes back to a belief about the original text. KJV-only believes that it’s the only translation which comes from the original, preserved text, and that all others have Catholic influence, having had key parts added or removed to accommodate Catholic doctrine. Some even go as far as to believe this was a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the Roman church centuries ago to contaminate the Protestant movement with Catholic, works-based doctrine.

    The troubling thing is this - 99% of those who are KJV-only, and will swear up and down that all other translations are “devil-books”, have no idea why they believe as much. They’ve just blindly accepted what they’ve been told. If you don’t know WHY you believe what you believe, you don’t really believe anything at all. You’ve become a pawn in a controlled environment that’s cultic in nature.

  44. Jake wrote:

    Adding to the KJV thing, what gets me is the ones who wave the “KJV 1611″ flag. The KJV used today is the 3rd major revision of the 1611 KJV. Furthermore, the KJV of 1611 included not only the Old Testament and New Testament, but the Appocrypha as well, yet none of the KJV only crowd will accept the Appocrypha as the Word of God. But … I’d better stop while I’m ahead.

  45. Randy wrote:

    Bottom line: Shock value to promote a church. The Marilyn Manson of religious nuts. Once you realize nobody is coming to your church, create a stir and see if people come just to be shocked. They will, but they will see your motives are to cover up a lack of true substance with an entertaining gimmick. Just like many artists do with a poor song.

  46. Kyle wrote:

    #45 Randy - VERY good point….

  47. KDM wrote:

    Come on, you guys. Everyone knows that God speaks King James English.

    Seriously, I’ve known of pastors who will take the KJV over the original Greek and Hebrew. That’s how sold they are on KJV. I personally prefer it because it requires you to concentrate more on what you’re reading…you can’t just buzz through a KJV Bible like a summer bestseller. There’s also the fact that most modern translations are adaptations of the KJV, not new translations. I think that puts the KJV a little higher on the accuracy scale. I’m not militant about it, though.

  48. Art wrote:

    #20
    I looked thru some of the pages…I like this one with jokes about other demoninations.
    http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/subpage447.html

  49. cdguy wrote:

    #43 - Lewis, Thank you for the post. Your 2nd paragraph could be said about many Christians’ “beliefs”. People don’t know why they believe what they believe, or why they’re Baptists instead of Nazarenes, etc. Or what difference there is between Catholics and Lutherans (I knew a guy who said his mother’s Lutheran church was “the closest thing to Catholics you could get.” He obviously didn’t know anything about the 95 Theses.)

    Or why Mormons are not really Christians. Simply put, they do not believe Jesus is the Only Son of God, and the Only Way to heaven.

  50. Brett wrote:

    I am all for reading the original Hebrew language of the Bible. Forget even translating it in any English version.

  51. David Bruce Murray wrote:

    When I worked in Christian retail, someone would come in from time to time wanting to purchase a Spanish bible. On more than one occasion, they requested that it be a KJV. I had to explain that the KJV is an English translation.

    I could always see the wheels start turning as they wrapped their mind around the concept that the KJV is also a translation, not the original.

  52. Julie D wrote:

    Has anybody heard about Jerry Kelso with the Dove Brothers? I’ve heard he’s leaving them at the end of the year.

  53. Tony Watson wrote:

    KDM #47 - Actually, many of the most common english translations are not translated from the KJV but are translated, just like the KJV was, from the original manuscripts. NIV, NASB, ESV to name a few are not translated from the KJV but from the originals just like the KJV was. When I was in seminary virtually all of my professors said they preferred the NASB. It’s my preferred translation too for reading and studying though I preach out of the NIV.

  54. RF wrote:

    I see where two of the Crabbs (Aaron and Amanda) are leaving the road (or supposedly so) to be music ministers at John Hagee’s church. Strange.

  55. scope wrote:

    Why do you find that strange? They were offered the job, and they accepted it. Happens all the time.

  56. Extra Ink wrote:

    I always find it interesting when people pummel others who prefer the KJV and only the KJV.

    If someone prefers the KJV and ONLY the KJV, that is his business. Why slam him?

  57. Tom wrote:

    #49
    The biggest issue that the 95 Theses dealt with, and the issue that prompted Luther to post them, was the controversy over justification. Fortunately, that debate is now over. The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church signed a document in 1999 (the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification), declaring that both sides now agree on the doctrine of justification, and mutual condemnations from the sixteenth century were reversed. In 2006, the World Methodist Council also signed the document. So now there is official agreement between Roman Catholics, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Methodist Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Church of the Nazarene, and the Wesleyan Church, regarding the main divisive element of the sixteenth century reformations.

    I’m sure that any of y’all out there who have not yet signed on to overcome the divisions of the sixteenth century are welcome to come to the table.

  58. DMP wrote:

    Maybe because John Hagee is insane.

  59. RF wrote:

    No. 55–strange in that, with all the hoopla that has always surrounded the Crabbs, they would leave the road, if they are.

    That’s all.

  60. onemadeupmind wrote:

    saw gerald crabb’s fb post about aaron and amanda going to hagee’s church. it is true per daddy crabb.
    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?v=feed&story_fbid=172244810628&id=559996675

  61. Wade wrote:

    Ok here’s ya a bible translation question.

    Because Dr. Joe challenged me to know WHY I believe what I do I signed up for a doctrine class in the 1st Southern Baptist where I play at.

    I was shocked last week when the teacher of the class taught about SELECTION… yes a Baptist Church I promise. I thought for a second I was in a Presbyterian Church.

    But he claimed in the original text that in John 3:16 there was NOT…. WHO SO EVER WILL…

    Since we are discussing translations I went and looked it up in ALL the different translations I have around the house and in ALL of then there was SOME word(s) that said WHO SO EVER WILL…

    I would like to challenge him on this and am doing some independent research but can any of you SCHOLARS throw me a bone???

  62. Jim E. Davis wrote:

    The bible burners may be extreme but hardly comparable to the Taliban or jihadists. Those who don’t agree with the Taliban are shot and beheaded. Furthermore, one of the preachers who strongly held to this belief in the sole use of the KJV for many years was the pastor of the largest church in the USA with around 100,000 members (far more than 15).

    There are enough versions now to fit any belief system you may desire. I view God as holy, awesome and all powerful, therefore I prefer the KJV. But those of you in plaid and a braid can grab a copy of The Message and still find God. Peace.

  63. Alan wrote:

    Wade - I checked 15 different translations and/or paraphrases of the Bible, and all 15 used words like “whosoever”, “whoever”, or “everyone”. It seems like your teacher has bought into the more Calvinistic school of thought, in that only the “elect” may be saved.

    So, from John Calvin’s own commentary on John 3:16, I quote: “It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World….”

    The “whosoever” is indeed universal, but only appropriated by those who believe. All may come, but all will not. I find it not a little amazing that on this point, it would appear that Calvin himself wasn’t a complete Calvinist! And, I applaud your enrolling in that class.

  64. Revpaul wrote:

    #61 Wade,
    An exact word-for-word translation of the Greek is as follows:

    “For so loved God the world that his Son the only begotten he gave, that everyone who believes on him may not perish, but may have life eternal.”

    As you can see, the word arrangement is different from Greek to English, but it sure looks like “whosoever” to me!

  65. J wrote:

    I would pay $58 for singing news if one of J.D.’s column was in it.

  66. Jake wrote:

    To # 56 Estra Link — The issue isn’t that some people prefer the KJV. Everyone is entitled to their preferences. My problem is with those who believe the KJV is the “only” inspired English Bible translation, and that all others are perversions. Or, as the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in North Carolina put it, all other translations are the devil’s Bible. And while burning non-KJV Bibles may be a bit extreme, the fact is that the “KJV only” crowd tends to be rather militant and very dogmatic in their beliefs. If you don’t agree with them you are branded a heretic.

  67. Soli Deo Gloria wrote:

    #61- Your argument re: John 3:16 misses the point. Read Romans 8, 9 and 10. Your teacher is right.

    As an aside, the KJV is close to the worst of the accepted translations. I still wouldn’t burn one though.

  68. Tony Watson wrote:

    #62 Jim - I believe God is holy, awesome, powerful, sovereign and I study the NASB and preach from the NIV. I use the KJV and NKJV sometimes as well. It’s not about finding a translation to suit your belief system. Those translations, like the ones I mentioned plus the ESV, RSV - those are translated straight from the same documents as the KJV was translated from - those are direct translations.

    The Message is a paraphrase - not even in the same league as a translation. That is sort of in the apples and oranges variety in some ways in this discussion. There are others that are translations from translations as well and I wouldn’t hold those to the same validity as the ones I previously mentioned.

    If your preferred translation is the KJV - go for it - it’s a great translation - but it’s only true advantage over the NASB, NIV, etc. is it was the first. After all, Paul did not preach in Old English.

    The problem comes not in preferring KJV - that’s totally fine. The problem comes like this church in North Carolina which is doing more to damage the witness of Christians and in my view, not bringing glory to God at all. They have taken a stand, which is admirable, it just doesn’t happen to be one grounded in truth.

  69. Lewis Wells wrote:

    #56…To go along with Jake’s comments in #66, it isn’t the preference of the KJV that I find troubling. It’s the reasoning, or lack thereof, behind the often militant mindset of KJV-only. As David pointed out in #51, a LARGE portion of the KJV-only crowd believe that it’s the original text as dictated from God Himself, thees, thous, and thus included. Many of them believe God’s language is the king’s english.

    I love the KJV. I also happen to love several other translations. I read and study from them all.

    If the KJV is someone’s preferred translation, God bless them, and I hope they read it and live it until the leather wears and they need a new copy. When they begin to look down on brothers and sisters in the Lord for choosing a different translation, however, a line is crossed and absolutely nothing good comes from it.

  70. lovelife wrote:

    We had this issue 3 wks. ago at our church. 2 visitors from out of state came in our church and before entering the sanctuary asked our pastor, “are you a KJV church”? We were surprised they stayed because we are not a KJV only church. The sign that hangs over our door says General Baptist, but, our pastor just preaches the inspired word of God….

  71. Big Ken 54 wrote:

    #29 - I was also curious about the new Prophets Quartet. I saw Eddie Crook at a concert in Dayton, Ohio on October 31, so I asked him about them. He said the Prophets had a concert a week or so before, but he shook his head and said it’s been a hard road. Incidentally, Crook was at the concert playing piano for the Southmen Quartet with Tim Riley. I don’t know if that’s a permanent gig or not; probably not, because I’ve found that practically nothing is permanent in gospel music, as far as positions go.

  72. Alan wrote:

    #61 - Soli Deo Gloria - I’d be intrigued with your reasoning re: Romans 8-10. Those chapters deal primarily with Israel in their rejection of Christ and their ultimate restoration. How you fit that into John 3:16 and the discussion at hand will be a fun read. You may indeed be a part of a small (thankfully) minority who believe that Wade’s teacher is correct, but to believe that requires one to rewrite a majority of the Gospels.

    As for the KJV, I still like it and will read from it at times. The Elizabethan English is poetic and beautiful. Two Cambridge U scholars - by their own admission, evidently, not believers - studied the KJV against the oldest known manuscripts available, and deemed its accuracy as quite profound. Many other authorities concur. I own most of the translations and a few of the paraphrases, and can get something from all of them. I do agree with a number of scholars that the NASB is likely the most accurate of all of the new translations.

  73. Joe wrote:

    Wade- Good hearing from you not only here, but privately. Your teacher and Soli Deo Gloria are quite wrong. “Whosoever” means exactly what it says, and there are multiple dozens of NT verses that say the very same thing.

    Electon is a “family secret”- shared by the Lord only to those who ARE saved. It has no bearing for us concerning the unsaved, as we have no clue who “the elect” might be. It has no place in the preaching of the gospel. We are to “preach the gospel to every creature” and “make disciples of all men”.

    The best explanation I have ever heard on this misunderstood topic is this: when a seeking sinner approaches, by faith, the allegorical door to salvation, he or she sees written up over the door, on the OUTSIDE, “whosoever will may come”. Once inside, this now-saved sinner turns around, and for the first time, sees written up over the door on the INSIDE these words: “chosen in Christ, from before the foundation of the world”. THAT is election. Only understood (and poorly at that, as it is an infinite God-thing, and not human at all) by those who truly are saved.

    As to the KJV, Soli Deo Gloria is wrong on this as well. This version is no more Divinely inspired than any others, and it is far more reverent and accurate than many of the modern-day translations. But the Lord has carefully preserved this version of His Word for almost 400 years. I have a total of 12 different, and have my favorites. I can show you translational errors in every one of them.

    But…it was the KJV that caused the Bible to first earn the award of the “world’s best seller”, one it has never relinquished. And many of us were saved through the wording of the verses in the KJV. I am not a KJV-only- but it will always be my favorite.

    If this answer is not enough, Wade- write me back again personally. Great hearing from you- and good for you, pal; you KNEW when something you were taught didn’t sound right, and questioned it. This is what John meant when he said “Try the spirits, whether they be of God…” (1 John 4:1). You spotted false teaching all on your own- good for you!

    If any would like other NT verses to prove that salvation is for everyone, please let me know.

  74. MS wrote:

    On the KJV Bible discussion:

    I have never been a “KJV Only” person. BUT, about ten years ago or so, I discovered a couple of things about some other versions that disturbed me, which causes me to stick mostly with the KJV.

    Here is one example: In the KJV, you will find Matthew 17:21, where Jesus said, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”

    In the NIV, Matthew 17:21 doesn’t exist. The chapter jumps from verse 20 to verse 22.

    In context with the scriptures preceeding it, what Jesus said in v. 21 is a crucial key point in what he was teaching the disciples (and the others looking on) in relation to casting out demons.

    So, my question is, if Jesus said this (KJV v.21), why would any other version omit this verse? Why do some versions include this verse and others do not?

    Prayer AND fasting are vital elements of the Christian faith. So, I am genuinely asking.

    Any well-studied Bible scholars have any insight to this?

  75. CVH wrote:

    Suzan Speer is still hot.

    Sorry, all this KJV stuff is getting to me.

  76. Joe wrote:

    MS #74- What you have cited is true of a number of translations, which derive from manuscripts different than does the KJV.

    For example- the ESV, a newer literal translation, which is considered very accurate and reverent for the most part, uses the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, and the basis for the 1993 Greek New Testament. It too, leaves out the verse you mentioned.

    I’ll give you another example. Some of the earlier manuscripts do not include the question in Acts 9:6 Paul asks in the KJV, immediately after his salvation “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” The ESV leaves this out; so do the NASB, the NLT, the NIV, the HCSB, the NRSV, the NCV, and the JN Darby translation.

    You might ask “why?” The answer is that while it is most likely not there in Acts 9:6 in the original, but was inserted by a copyist, this phrase WAS in the subsequent re-telling of his testimony (Acts 22:10). So, nothing changes.

    Fasting is actually not a major part of Christianity, in fact…you may have noticed that it is almost not mentioned past the middle of the book of Acts- it seems that as the church matured, it was not practiced much at all, if at all.

    When Paul mentions in 2 Cor. 11:27 that he suffered “fastings often”, it seems this meant starvation as a trial, not a vow of faith or prayer. It is not mentioned past there in the NT.

    Hope this helps.

  77. BUICK wrote:

    Since this is a very open thread, let me pose this observation & question:

    Driving along today, I heard yet another SG song about Beulah Land. I have no idea how many songs have been written that reference Beulah Land but I grew up with several in our church hymnal. There is only one verse in all of Scripture (KJV or NIV) that speaks of Beulah Land (Isa. 62:4). Can you think of another term that appears only once in the Bible that is used even more in songs?

    Well, how about Calvary? That word appears only once in the KJV (Lk 23:33) and NOT AT ALL in the NIV yet there are countless songs that use the word.

    QUESTION: Why do you suppose this is true? Lots of other words appear many more times in the Bible but don’t get worked into songs very often. But Beulah Land and Calvary get a real workout. (I don’t mind; I’m just wondering. Not nearly as important as KJV vs NIV vs TEV vs NASB, etc. But I’d love to hear the opinions of the sagacious AVFL crowd.)

  78. Lewis Wells wrote:

    Buick…That’s kinda like me being anxious to get to Heaven to hear the “half that’s not been told.” Maybe then people will stop writing songs about something which the very phrase itself tells them they know nothing about;)

    And BTW, if the KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas, it’s good enough for this ole boy.

  79. tommy wrote:

    Regarding post #12 - I dont know of any business that hasnt had at least one upset customer. We are only getting one side of the story here. Also, how can you attack one persons character while filing lawsuits against your Christian Brother which is forbidden in the Bible. Maybe this person should list their name and business so anyone who has ever had a problem with them can discredit them and cost them business. I dont know the folks at Sogospelnews but I hate to see people attack people and hurt their means of making a living without having the guts to use their name.

  80. Tom wrote:

    #77 BUICK:

    If you are looking in the Bible, you’re looking in the wrong place for the origin of “Beulah” as used by Squire Parsons and other contemporary gospel songwriters.

    It comes instead from the very influential allegorical novel “Pilgrim’s Progress,” written by John Bunyan in the seventeenth century. Bunyan assigns the name Beulah to the beautiful, peaceful, Edenic-like garden area at the very end of the King’s Highway, just before the Celestial City. From Beulah, one can see the radiant majesty of the Celestial City very near by, just across the River of Death. In Beulah, pilgrims relax and recover from their journeys until it is their time to cross the River of Death and enter the Celestial City.

    As an allegory, every name (for both characters and places) in Pilgrim’s Progress is vested with meaning. There are MANY, MANY names that Bunyan uses–and many of them he does take from the Bible. There is no doubt that Bunyan got the name “Beulah” from the passage you cite (Is. 62.4), but, at least as he uses it as a place name in Pilgrim’s Progress, it seems pretty clear that Bunyan isn’t trying to evoke any meaning from the original context in Isaiah–he is simply lifting an obscure place name from the Bible and using it for this beautiful and serene garden at the end of life’s journey, just before heaven.

    Obscure no longer, however, for in this new context in Pilgrim’s Progress, “Beulah” becomes the destination for the end of the Christian’s life. Due to the immense popularity of the book, many names Bunyan uses in Pilgrim’s Progress have become part of English-speaking life and culture–including not just “Beulah,” but (among others) also “Vanity Fair,” the “River of Death,” the “Slough of Despond,” and even the notions that the Christian life is a “pilgrimage” or that an unconverted person carries a heavy “burden” that is finally released when one comes to the Cross.

    In this new context in which Bunyan places “Beulah,” it becomes the final destination of the Christian’s life, evoking the supposed serenity of the last days of one’s life, knowing the battles (spiritual and physical) are all behind, and that one can already see heaven awaiting.

    This is the context that the popular gospel song / hymn “Beulah Land,” written in the nineteenth century by E. P. Stites, is meant to evoke. A quick look at the first two verses and refrain show how this song is meant to allude to Bunyan’s “Beulah”:

    VERSE 1:
    I’ve reached the land of corn and wine,
    And all its riches freely mine;
    Here shines undimmed one blissful day,
    For all my night has passed away.

    REFRAIN:
    O Beulah Land, sweet Beulah Land,
    As on thy highest mount I stand,
    I look away across the sea,
    Where mansions are prepared for me,
    And view the shining glory shore,
    My Heav’n, my home forever more!

    VERSE 2:
    My Savior comes and walks with me,
    And sweet communion here have we;
    He gently leads me by His hand,
    For this is Heaven’s border land.

    Clearly Stites is drawing on Bunyan’s vision of a land just before death, on the border of heaven, but still not quite there yet–one still has to cross the barrier of death before finally reaching heaven.

    But . . . wait! That’s not quite the context in which Squire Parsons uses “Beulah”:

    VERSE 1:
    I’m kind of homesick for a country
    To which I’ve never been before;
    No sad goodbyes will ever be spoken,
    And time won’t matter any more.

    REFRAIN:
    Beulah land, I’m longing for you,
    And, some day, on thee I’ll stand,
    There my home shall be eternal.
    Beulah land, sweet Beulah land.

    VERSE 2:
    I’m looking now across the river
    Where my faith will end in sight;
    There’s just a few more days to labor,
    And then I’ll take my heavenly flight.

    Clearly, for Squire Parsons, “Beulah” has become heaven. No longer is it the peaceful land this side of death, from which we await heaven; for Parsons, “Beulah” is the place where “my home shall be eternal.” Yes, he does use the imagery of looking longingly across the river–but, for Parsons, he’s looking across the river towards “Beulah.” For Parsons, Beulah IS the Celestial City.

    So it’s hard telling just how Parsons came to this. Did he misunderstand the meaning of Beulah in its traditional Bunyanian context? Did he intentionally shift the meaning? I don’t know. But he’s still around, I’m sure you could ask him!

    And the other gospel songs about “Beulah” to which you allude are probably a mixed bag. Squire Parson’s song has become SO popular that it’s quite possible that some songwriters who use “Beulah” are alluding to the way in which Bunyan and Stites use it (the very end of this life, but still before death), while other songwriters may be alluding to the way in which Parsons uses it (eternal home in the presence of God after this life has ended).

    As for “Calvary,” its location at the very center of the biblical timeline (to which all that comes before points, and from which all that comes after radiates) easily seals its place in Christian vocabulary, regardless of how many times it might be used in the Bible. I don’t really see any mystery as to why that name gets used so frequently. “Calvary” comes from the Latin form of the name “Golgotha,” which is Aramaic in derivation and means “place of the skull” (perhaps due to geographic features in the area that resembled a skull). So some modern translations use “Golgotha” or even write out “place of the skull” instead of using the name “Calvary.” But the historically dominating influence of the KJV’s use of “Calvary” easily explains why “Calvary” is used much more often in songs than is “Golgotha”.

    There are some other somewhat obscure biblical words that seem to exercise a great deal more use in songs and literature than their obscure biblical origins might suggest. For example, the word “rapture” appears only once, and in a very ambiguous fashion, yet some people’s fanciful imaginations have conjured up an entire system of belief about this–and the word “rapture” shows up in gospel songs quite frequently.

  81. Joe wrote:

    Eternity. Isaiah 57:16 (KJV)

  82. Jim E. Davis wrote:

    Simple. It’s easier to rhyme with Calvary and Beulah Land than Golgotha and Heaven.

  83. MS wrote:

    Joe (#76)
    I really appreciate your response to my question. It gives me much to think about and research.

    Does a direct translation from original manuscripts exist today?? I have also heard of the Geneva Bible, that, according to some information I was given, included footnotes that King James intentionally left out of the 1611 translation to english.

  84. Jake wrote:

    MS (#82) — As far as we know, there are no original manuscripts of the Bible in existence. For many years, prior to the invention of the printing press, all copies of the Bible or portions of the Bible were done by hand. We have myriads of copies, copies of copies, copies of copies of copies, etc.

    Any time there is human involvement in copying, there is room for human error (e.g. skipping a line, accidently changing a word, etc.) so it is safe to say occassional, minor errors came into some of the copies.

    However, the amazing thing is that, due to the sheer number of copies and fragments that we have, the Bible manuscripts “police” themselves — that is, there are so many of them that these minor errors can be discovered and compared and even corrected when they are deemed to indeed be errors. Thus, the trustworthiness of the Bible is verified by the amount of copies available to check it with.

    No major doctrine of Scripture is affected by any minor discrepencies between copies. Our English Bible, regardless of the translation, is extremely accurate and preserved. Any minor differences between various translations (such as the occasional insertion or exclusion of a verse) is due to the minor differences in the Hebrew or Greek texts that were used. But again, none of these discrepencies affect any major doctrine of Scripture, nor do they weaken the total message of the Bible.

    (Incidently, the whole “KJV only” debate hinges on which set of manuscripts is “better.” They (the KJV only crowd) think they have the best manuscript. None of them were around when Paul wrote his epistles, so they can’t prove it, but that is what they think.)

    There is no other book which has been passed on for so many centuries that has retained the accuracy that the Bible has. God’s hand of preservation has been upon His Word. Whether you are reading/studying the KJV, the NIV, NASB, etc. you can be sure that it is the Word of God, witten by the Spirit of God, and God will use it in your life to transform you into the image of Christ, the living Word.

  85. Rev. Edward Robinson wrote:

    # 71 — Thanks so much for your comments regarding the Prophets Quartet. I have a tremendous respect for Ed Hill and for Bill Baize. I truly believe that these two gentlemen are two of the most underappreciated men in southern gospel music. I would so love to see them do well with this group, as I believe that their style of singing, coupled with a real passion for ministry, is so badly needed today.
    I know that oftentimes the focus of Ed Hill’s singing career has been his time with the Stamps Quartet. And what a time that was! But personally, I think that his time with the Singing Americans was some of his very best, especially in terms of the quality of the music. I often wonder what would have happened had he stayed withw the Singing Americans. Is it possible that they would still be around today as a driving musical force? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know.
    In terms of Bill Baize, my favorite recording of him is the “Live at Murray State” recording when he was with the Stamps. That would rank in the top 5 of my favorite live albums. There was a power in his voice then and there was a quality in his voice then that may never be matched.
    Although both of these are certainly older (aren’t we all?), I have the deepest respect for them, and I pray that they will be able to continue doing what they obviously love to do for many, many years to come.

  86. Soli Deo Gloria wrote:

    #72 & 73- You are both dead wrong regarding the Gospel, salvation and election…which means you’re probably both southern gospel singers.

  87. Alan wrote:

    And #86, as you’ve likely bought into one of the latest sets of errant theologies to come down the pike - Covenant theology - time, and eternity, will prove you wrong. I personally thank God that I’m a part of the “whoever” that God predestined, as in His ominiscience, he foreknew me as His child. Simple as that. The Gospel is not easy, but it really is a simple truth to believe. I pray that God will give you an amazing revelation of the simple grace available to all who believe.

  88. Michael McIlwain wrote:

    Concerning salvation there are two strong views about the “elect” and “whosoever will.” Both term are in the Bible and must not be explained away. There is an antinomy in the scriptures. Both things are true even though they seem contradictory to man. God has chosen a people for Himself from before the foundation of the world based solely in His good pleasure. (See Ephesians 1).

    On the other hand, for the means of seeing this group of people saved God has given us evangelism (See Matthew 28:18-20). We are not to merely say, “Well, the Lord is going to save His elect, so we will sit back and let him do it.” We are sinning if we don’t call “whosoever will” to commit his or her life to Christ. All are invited, but only those that God stirs up to believe will.

    I know that all of my Christians brothers and sisters here will not agree with me on this. However, I view no one as an enemy who believes in evangelism and faithful ministry. I hesitated to even respond, because so often people do not want to have an open and honest discussion about such doctrines.

    Concerning the comment about Covenant Theology made by Alan, I could not disagree more. I used to adhere to Premillenial Dispensationalism, but have moved to Covenant Theology. In Covenant Theology I see the New Testament contained in the Old Testament and the Old Testament revealed in the New Testament. In Covenant Theology I see Christ throughout the Old Testament laying the foundation for building one united people of God, but in Dispensationalism I see two groups of people that God deals with differently. I see a fragmented body instead of a united one.

  89. wackythinker wrote:

    I’ve read so much here today, I don’t remember who said what, but i think someone indicated you could pick your theology, based on a particular translation. I think the reality is that any English translation will bring you to the same theological conclusions, based on whatever VERSE or CHAPTER you wish to include.

    A verse that is left out of one translation’s text is probably shown in the footnotes, with explanation in the Preface or Forward, as to why some words may have been omitted. I know, King James, and all his scholars didn’t need footnotes, why should we bother with them 400 years later. READ! There may be a valid reason!

    Just my 2-cents worth.

  90. wackythinker wrote:

    And to the one who took a class in theology at the local church: If the teacher made statements you don’t understand, or feel is not what the church teaches, TALK WITH THE PASTOR. Two reasons: 1-He may help you understand. 2-He needs to know if someone is teaching unscripturally in his church.

    Your pastor should thank you.

  91. wackythinker wrote:

    OOPS!! ok, I know it’s not the pastor’s church - - it’s God’s church, but you know what I mean. The pastor is the overseer, and he needs to know, and act accordingly.

  92. Lewis Wells wrote:

    #89…That’s true. I own hard copies of the NKJV and Amplified, and both have extensive footnotes and reference notes on each page that point out the variables in the translation of certain words and phrases, omissions, additions, and so on.

    It’s not like the newer translations are trying to pull a fast one on the KJV and older translation folk.

    Regardless of whatever anyone may think of him, Billy Graham gave the best answer I’ve heard when asked which translation he considered the best one. His answer: “The one you’re actually reading.”

  93. Extra Ink wrote:

    The KJV says “In my Father’s house are many mansions”

    Another version(s) (I believe it’s the NIV) says “In my Father’s house are many rooms”

    I find the difference in these translations to be polar opposites and disturbing. I can get a room at the Days Inn or the Motel 6. A mansion is a totally different thing altogether.

    My question to all those who believe any translation is as good as the next is this: where do you draw the line?

    How do you draw the conclusion, since you believe any of several translations are OK? Which one do you pick on this verse and many other verses? Is it the one you like the best? So in this case, you would select the KJV. In the next verse you come to where the translations differ, do you again choose the one you like the best? How do you know that your selection is actually what God has for you?

    The answer is that God said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away. One of the versions is God’s Holy Word, IMO.

  94. Lewis Wells wrote:

    #93…In that particular case, I would choose the NIV as the far more accurate translation.

    This is the danger of comparing other translations to the KJV rather than to the original Greek and Hebrew text. The word mansion in the KJV and the word room in the NIV are tranlasted from the Greek word “mona”, which means “a staying, abiding, dwelling, abode”.

    From that definition, in this instance it would appear the translators of the KJV took far more liberty in the translation of “mona” than the translators of the NIV, so one could just as easily ask of you where you draw the line.

    Every translation will have certain words or phrases which can become sticking points if we want to dwell on them. They all have errors, which is one reason I never engage in serious study without a Strong’s concordance or visiting Blue Letter Bible.

  95. Jake wrote:

    Another important translation fact to remember is that when translating from one language to another, there isn’t always a word that has the exact meaning as the original language, and it is up to the translator to figure out what word in the language being translated into best meets the meaning of the word being translated.

    Maybe the classic example is the English word “love.” The Greek, from which the New Testament came, is very specific and has several different words (agape, phileo, storge, eros, etc.) We don’t have English words that are equivalent to these, so the one word that end up encompassing all of them is “love.” Hence, we love God, love our spouse, love our dog, and love apple pie. (Hopefully your relationship with God is different than your relationship with apple pie!) We loose something in English, because in the Greek New Testament, the different words used have different meanings, but one of the translation difficulties is that “love” is the best they can do.

    Sometimes when you see a different word used in two different Bible translations, it is simply that the translator tried to find the closest English word to the original, and different translators chose different words.

  96. Irishlad wrote:

    Alan,Dr David Gooding is preaching this Sunday in Brooklands Gospel Hall’s 40th anniversary.

  97. Joe wrote:

    The actual word in the Greek for “mansions” (KJV), is “room”. The concept is similar to that explained by the Amish. When an Amish boy takes a bride, his father adds a personal room for them onto the family dwelling, and welcomes the new couple into the family…permanently, if they wish.

    None of us deserve a “room” in the Father’s house in heaven, much less a mansion!

    There are 3 main types of Bible versions.
    One is a paraphrase, which in essence, is not a translation at all. These are, by far, the most inaccurate. Anybody can paraphrase God’s Word, it would seem…

    Another is the “thought for thought”, or dynamic(functional) equivalent.

    The other is a “word for word”, or essentially literal (formal equivalence) translation. In all cases, the latter is preferred for textual accuracy.

    Examples of paraphrases:
    NTME (New Testament in Modern English/Phillips)
    TLB- The Living Bible
    TM- The Message
    TSB- The Street Bible

    Examples of thought for thought/dynamic (functional) equivalent:
    NIV-New International Version
    NCV-New Century Version
    NLT-New Living Translation
    TNIV-Today’s NIV
    CEV-Contemporary English Version
    GNB-Good News Bible

    Examples of “word for word” (essentially literal/formal equivalence) translations:
    KJV-King James Version
    NKJV-New King James Version
    RSV-Revised Standard Version
    NRSV-New Revised Standard Version
    JND- J.N. Darby Version
    ESV-English Standard Version
    NASB-New American Standard Bible

    There is yet another, becoming more popular, that is in a class unto itself.
    HCSB-Holman Christian Standard Bible.
    This version claims to be an “optimal equivalent” translation, making the best of both worlds of word-for-word, and thought-for-thought. The jury is still out on this one.

    If any want my personal favorites, let me know.

    Hope this helps.

  98. CVH wrote:

    At the risk of oversimplifying the translation debate, and to borrow from the Gaither Vocal Band, to me the purpose of the Christian life comes down to “loving God and loving each other.” The rest is details.

    If we, as followers of Christ, are earnestly pursuing him - each of us on the unique journey he’s laid out, which includes which translation or paraphrase best speaks to our heart - do we need to engage in debating the minutia of scriptural interpretation?

    I mean, really, unless you’re arguing the nuances of a particular position while studying for an M.Div., why bother? Isn’t the soverign God of the universe capable of speaking through his own Word - whether it’s presented in the archaic idiom of the King James version or the stylistic paraphrase of The Message?

    Armchair Bible scholars and wannabe theologians who insist on debating the fine points of interpretation and language are only talking to themselves. True scholars find them intellectually boring; earnest seekers of truth find them too dogmatic; most others see them as missing the forest for the trees.

    The first and second commandments and the Beatitudes (or the entire Sermon on the Mount if you will) have provided the basis of my spiritual journey for years. I have my hands too full trying to live that truth every day to worry about whether the word Abrek (or Abrech) is a title or a command.

  99. scope wrote:

    I want to thank all of you who have been posting about the different translations. This has been very informative, and for the most part very civil. This is what I wish it could be like more often here.

  100. Joe wrote:

    CVH- With respect, you have oversimplified this issue.

    Paraphrases are very inaccurate representations of God’s Word. They are essentially God’s Word, completely re-stated, by a single individual. What is the result, is way too often the word of man, and not what it is purported to be. Kenneth Taylor’s TLB is a classic example.

    The thought-for-thought Bibles also carry with them an inherent risk. Since the translators are trying to put into words what they THINK the Bible writers MEANT to say, they give themselves leeway to not only be inaccurate, but to put translational/theological/doctrinal bias into the very translation. This can be quite dangerous.

    Jesus often spoke to the value of “every word…” I believe this is the best, safest, and most accurate way to read and understand what the Lord has preserved to tell us.

  101. Alan wrote:

    Ah, Irishlad… Gotta tell you, Phillip - if I were anywhere near there, you know just where I’d be! The man is 85 now, and his mind is better at 85 than most peoples’ mind ever was at 35, including mine! Are you thinking of going to hear him? I know that every time I’ve sat under his teaching, it’s been powerful and helpful. Thanks for the neat tip.

  102. BIUCK wrote:

    Good stuff, Joe, Jake, et al. In addition to all that was said, take into consideration the way language changes over time. (Traditional Christmas carols about donning our gay apparel don’t mean what gay apparel means today. And the word “charity” in the sequence “faith, hope and charity”did not mean in 1611 what we mean by charity today.) It is an astounding thing that God has preserved His Word in our Language! Read about the personal sacrifice of men like Wycliffe and others whose only “crime” was wanting to make God’s Word accessible to average people. And then most of us take that Word so lightly that we don’t read it as frequently as we read these Internet postings. And we don’t study it like we study to stock markets. This has been a great discussion but what’s the point if we aren’t actually reading our Bibles (of whatever translation we choose)?

  103. Extra Ink wrote:

    #102, that’s a good point about Bible reading. I think it’s one of the things most Christians today have neglected because there are so many other diversions in our lives to fill up our time…I count myself as one of those who should be reading his Bible more.

  104. DMP wrote:

    These arguments about translations always make me laugh. I have some good friends who really, really love their KJV, and to them, anything else is a travesty. However, let us not forget that there was a day when it was viewed as an abomination to translate the Bible into the language of commoners, English. And don’t forget that your translation is just that. It is a translation.

  105. Rob wrote:

    Long time Kingsmen singer Parker Jonathan has resurfaced with a trio. It consist of Parker & Paula Jonathan and Eric Dunson. They are known as The Jonathans.

  106. apathetic wrote:

    The KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me………what?…..you mean………DOH!

  107. cynical one wrote:

    I’m not sure I can be sure whether Jesus really meant “mansions” or “rooms”, since I wasn’t there. But what I KNOW is this: Heaven’s going to be a wonderful place, no matter what we call it. Whether He builds me a 50-room mansion, or a lean-to, where I can be close to Him, it’s going to be pretty neat!

    Maybe the best way to understand the Bible would be to prayerfully study several translations of the same passage. Then we would have several translators’ opinions of what the earliest manuscripts said. But the key is PRAYER.

    BUICK — I really appreciated your post. Thanks.

    Jake — I can see your point regarding word-for-word vs thought-for-thought, but do you really think word-for-word translation could not be slanted, too? Aren’t ALL translators trying “to put into words what they THINK the Bible writers MEANT to say”?

  108. Irishlad wrote:

    Alan,i’m sorry to say i missed that sevice.From what you say it was somthing not to miss.In future i will endeavour to go hear him.I will keep you posted.Btw the gospel group “The Woodvale” were singing in my home church Sunday night,they are reduced from 5 to 3 members and boy you should hear these guys sing to be in their mid seventies and have been for close on 60 years.Well done to Alec,Denis and Graham Murphy,whom i think you know.

  109. Joe wrote:

    cynical- I think you posed that question to me, and not Jake. My answer is this; the editorial boards of all of the essentially literal word-for-word translations, make it very clear in their prefaces that they specifically do NOT do this. They really cannot, because they are trying to translate the best manuscripts the best way, but doing it literally.

    They do not have, nor do they give themselves, the leeway to try to describe what they think the writers meant.

    Hope this answers your question.

  110. Just Thinking wrote:

    I’m probably the only person who didn’t already know about this website, but I recently found a wonderful tool for comparing versions. I especially like the “Greek” tab that gives you a word by word definition of the original Greek words. I love this website:
    http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm

  111. Charles Brady wrote:

    #94 ( Hi Lewis!)
    I think maybe the translators knew that “KING” James could relate better to “Mansions” than to rooms…. Just a thought…

  112. Alan wrote:

    Irishlad - by all means, if you ever see Prof. Gooding speaking somewhere and can go, I can pretty much promise that you’d be a richer man for going! As for Graham and The Woodvale, yep, they’re amazing! As I recall, they hired Graham to be pianist for them, and then the baritone had to retire, so Graham stepped in. You don’t need me to tell you that he could play keys for most any group over here that he auditioned for! The man is indeed amazing. He must be the young one of the group, though! I miss your fair isle….

  113. Lewis Wells wrote:

    Hey Charles…You’re probably right. I think the same principle can probably apply across the board to most all translations, literal or paraphrased - being translated in such a way as to speak to the instinctive contemporary language of the day.

    As others have pointed out, some words just don’t have a clearly understood equal in another language, and the people doing the translation have to take certain liberties. Imagine trying to translate the english word “bad” for someone who doesn’t know the American culture, with it’s literal and slang usages.

  114. Irishlad wrote:

    Alan on 13th sept 2010 DV it will be my 50th birthday,as the NQC usually starts in or around that date i plan to be there.Perhaps if you’re there we can meet up for a chat.I will keep you posted.

  115. Tjeerd wrote:

    Good to see Parker back.

  116. Steve Krout wrote:

    I find it funny that those who don’t believe in the whole “KJV only” are just as ignorant as the crowd they are tearing down.

    I read the KJV and probably never will pick up another version. I firmly believe that the King James is the inspired Word of God…however, I’m not going to go out of my way to bring down those who don’t. I mean, I listen to preachers who use another version and God shows me great things through them…we just disagree on this one point.

    Now, I understand completely that there are those in the “KJV only” camp that are cut throat and I’d rather not be associated with them. Yet, on the flipside, there are those outside that camp that are just as cut throat about what they believe.

    Simply, just let it go. Believe what you feel God has led you to believe and I’ll do the same. The constant bashing of those who believe the KJ to be the inspired Word of God is just out of hand.

  117. AnnD wrote:

    Hey, I’ve read Ann Downing’s book….yeah, I think you wanna order it :) :) :) :).

    Happy Thanksgiving!!! ad

  118. Hector wrote:

    Speaking of bashing, read a new article titled “Edward Irving is Unnerving” to find out how LaHaye’s sidekick Thomas Ice is a champion basher. I found this article on Joe Ortiz’ “Our Daily Bread” blog (Nov. 12). This article can turn a dispy inside out!
    Hector

  119. Irishlad wrote:

    #117 Ann read your book in 1 go,that’s how much i enjoyed it.Shame it wasn’t longer.

  120. Charlene wrote:

    To see one of the most unusual and shocking prophecy articles I have ever found on the web, visit the Nov. 12 edition of OUR DAILY BREAD by Joe Ortiz and read “Edward Irving is Unnerving”! (CAUTION: It may cause loss of sleep!)
    Charlene

  121. Melvin Klaudt wrote:

    When reading the Bible, if you don’t pray and ask the Holy Spirit to annoint the scripture and teach you through it, all version’s are just Greek.

  122. Mike McIlwain wrote:

    Charlene (#120), it would be wise for all Christians to check their system of belief and make sure that it is actually what the Bible teaches. So many folks merely follow the system of theology that good ole brother so-and-so taught them. Bro. so-and-so might have been a great man of God but that does not mean that he was correct in all points of doctrine.

    Thanks for bringing this article by Joe Ortiz to our attention.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

*

*