princecharles wrote:
dont know why he start talking about the masoretic text

"The English translations generally available today are all based on the same Old Testament text—the Hebrew text that has existed without serious rival and with extraordinarily little variation for about two thousand years, called the Masoretic text.

Ancient versions (translations) of the Old Testament, including the Greek (called the Septuagint), differ from the Masoretic text in sometimes significant ways. Modern English versions differ in the extent to which they adopt readings from these and other non-Masoretic texts, but they all basically follow the Masoretic text.

princecharles wrote:
i still dont understand even reading randalls paper, it shows that the old testament has been copied accurately ?

Say, whats a "politically aware Democrat?"

Obama clearly does not know how to read a situation like this. Perhaps he doesn't do public grief 'acting' like other professional politicians. Gordon Brown is similar in that his personality takes second place to political ambition.

Observer wrote:
June
Ignore Wharton. All he knows is the greek characters and their sounds. If you transliterate what he has written you will find that it is English in greek characters.

But as long as you armchair judges remember that you are perfect, the rest of us poor Christians will struggle on in the real world.

June wrote:
I have noted that those who have rallied to the support of Paisley seem to be Scripturally deficient

Observer wrote:
Why don't you try reading the posts with care. Your inability to grasp the points being made is getting tiresome!

Sorry, No!

If the Christian ducks and runs every time we find iniquity in a situation, then the head hunters of primitive tribes would never have been brought to Christ.
You don't run just because sin, lust or covetousness rears its ugly head. We have to live in the real world.

Dr. Paisley was a very obvious Christian witness in a typically sin filled environment, just like your government. But we do not give up on on politicians anymore than any other group of society - just because of sin!!
We too are wretched sinners struggling with the flesh, the sinful churches and the world and all its abominations.
Let the task be done by God not by your perfect theology and armchair judgments.

Dan 9:5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:

Pastor Ralph Ovadal wrote:
To hold dual office is a conflict of interest, a mingling of God-given jurisdictions and a danger to the integrity, purity and independence of the church.

Do you believe that God wrote this.
Ro 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

Do church members in your constituency vote for political leaders whose policy's they then endorse in the democratic machinery of their community and nation.

My remark about Foster's "turn tail" was in response to June who quoted that; When the First Ministers discovered that they would have to go along with the arrangement to fund sodomites through their Department, since they were hindered in doing what they would wish to do, namely cancel the funding, they were entirely wrong to continue in that office."

Well done Ian Paisley.

_____________________

June; Quoted wrote:
.... they were entirely wrong to continue in that office.....(Ivan Foster)

Neil wrote:
Who authorized the KJV? Parliament? Unless someone can show this, it is misleading to use this adjective. Besides, Americans no longer recognize Parliamentary jurisdiction, esp. over churches.
It became a de facto English standard, not an official one, because that was what printers could lawfully publish. Now its verbiage was used in the authorized Book of Common Prayer, which BTW was odious to those Puritans who held to the Regulative Principle, and started a war when it was imposed upon the Scots by Laud.

"The case was different in Scotland, where the Geneva Bible had long been the standard Church Bible. It was not till 1633 that a Scots edition of the Authorized Version was printed - in conjunction with the Scots coronation in that year of Charles I. The inclusion of illustrations in the edition raised accusations of Popery from opponents of the religious policies of Charles, and of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury." (Wiki)

Candle Lit wrote:
Rather than being referred to as the Abrahamic covenant, it would be more accurate to say that God swore by Himself, that He would bless Abraham and his descendants after him.

KJV Dic.

COVENANT, n. L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.

1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation. A covenant is created by deed in writing, sealed and executed; or it may be implied in the contract

The covenant of grace, is that by which God engages to bestow salvation on man, upon the condition that man shall believe in Christ and yield obedience to the terms of the gospel.
__________

SWEAR/SWORE
1. To affirm or utter a solemn declaration, with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed.

Ye shall not swear by my name falsely. Lev.19.

But I say unto you, swear not at all. Matt.5.

2. To promise upon oath.

Jacob said, swear to me this day; and he swore to him. Gen.25.

Candle Lit wrote:
God's covenental promises to national Israel were irrevocable because they were with Abraham, NOT the people, and the covenant that God made was with Himself.