TOM: "you seem to be like so many people in the church I know, who value being "right" or doctrinally astute than with seeking and discipling the lost."

you don't know me at all do you? It is not a competition, nor am I a betting man. If it were though, and if i were a betting man, I would gaurantee you that I am far more concerned than you and could prove that with the amount of witnessing I do. I do not say this to boast or brag, just to prove the point that all the pansies that always cry love , love, and cry about those of us who call sin, sin, and say that we don't care about the lost... all those pansies are NEVER the ones who actually go and try to lead people to the Lord on a regular basis. Those people are the ones who try to live a "evangelical lifestyle" where people will come to Jesus based on how sweet you are and how much you "show Jesus in yourself". (ahh, look at their perrty halos).

First post: I should have been more clear. I believe the KJV is innerrant for the English language, which is all I speak and therefore is all I have had to worry about thus far (except for the spanish Bibles I provide free at the jails... but that is another rabbit trail we can speak on later)

If believing the Bible means I am arrogant, then amen, i am arrogant. so what? I don't doubt your wife's ability to read, I just doubt her ability to translate (you are supposed to be teaching her at home! not the other way around). Imaging me taking your wife's translating over that of the KJV translators, that would be absurd! Would it not!??!

additonal post: You state that the Hebrew authors meant temple prostitute. Prove it.

last post: there are plenty of verses to show God has preserved his word. Unfortunately to reply to everyone who has commented I don't have the space to type them. so here is a handy link... http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_28.asp

TOM 1st post: I confess my sins to God and the brethren . i have nothing to hide.
2nd post: what's your point?

Hear me. I believe the English, you beleive a language you can't read yourself.

I believe the Bible is preserved in the English as whole and complete as the Hebrew.

What neil gave us was not a divine definition, it was a quote that someone said the hebrew stood for, which is exactly what the translators of the KJV did in 1611.

Reread my posts. BTW, I don't care what any dictionary or what the Hebrew says. I believe what the BIBLE says. The KJV, preserved, prefect, innerrant word of God.

You see, this is what it always comes down to, do you believe the Bible to be true, the one you have in your hands right now. And sadly so, you get some people spouting off ignorance about lexicons, and dictionaries and whatnot. Us hillbillies just read the Bible and believe it. Is that so hard?

And on the sin thing. I call sin a sin... to state that again. A sodomite is a sodomite. I can refer to them as having vile affections, whoremongers, effiminate, laciviousness, unclean, fornicators.... etc etc. Which do you prefer I call them?

Why stand up for their sin like you do? I am a liar, I don't stand up for liars. I call them liars. I have committed adultery according to the gospels. i don't stand up for adulterers, I call them adulterers. etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

I wasn't being insulting, I was being blunt. If you look back, I said "surely you are not as dense as you are acting", I was giving you the benefit of the doubt rememember? And, I didn't call you ignorant, I called your statements about Sodom ignorant. Big difference.

Good for your wife. Glad to see you have one as well (being truthful here although I know it sounds blunt - i have that tendency it seems)

Not impressed with your degree, I have two myself and working on my third and I know the kind that run around my "intellectual" circle. In other words, a degree doesn't necessarily prove brains. (I will give you credit on the fact that the biology classes I had in undergrad studies were quite difficult and time consuming.)

Surely you are not as dense as you are acting. Where did I say anything about Sodom?

But to correct you about your ignorant Sodom statements...
1) why would that sin be specifically called after that city praytell?

2)Genesis 19:4-5 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

3)we see here that even if you don't know what they were after, Lot sure did (and I think he would know better than you!) Ge 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Lastly, I have no doubt you hate the KJV, every single Christian sodomite I have spoken with hates it, and all for the same reason, because it nails your sin (just as it does the sins I have).

"On the other hand are ultra-conservative Christians (the kind who use words like sodomite"

1Ki 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1Ki 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1Ki 22:46And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2Ki 23:7And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove
hangings for the grove.

De 23:17 There shall be no whore of
the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

"But gullible Bible thumpers love it."

Proverbs 10:8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.

how in the world did you post twice in a row?

(disclaimer: this isn't meant harsh)

Not all who disagree are lost, only those who do not adhere to the gospel of grace according to Romans 10 and I Cor. 15. Generalization is such an easy way to make statements, but generally wrong.

CBC: Get over it! The Bible is negative on many fronts. Often I seem negative when I am only being straight to the point. People are so thin skinned these days! I never said I didn't agree with Tozer, I just made the point of the difference between the doctrinal position of Babylon and the spiritual one made by Tozer (could have also went into the historical position as well but didn't think the apllication was needed).