1. Forum
  2. DOVE-Net
  3. Religion

  • I am third

    From Bogomips@VERT to Arelor on Wed May 14 10:20:44 2025
    God First, Everyone else second. I am third.

    I stated in the other sub that to love someone else other than God is a sin.

    And it was stated (paraphrasing) that Modern Interpretation would lean in a different direction.

    The Modern Interpretation is the problem. Alot of the Bibles people use these days were written less than 100 years ago. to satisfy man. not God.

    For over 50 years I went to a catholic church. It wasn't until I went to a Southern Baptist Service that I learned more about our Lord and Saviour in ~1 hour than 50 years prior.

    catholic church = $$$$
    Southern Baptist = Salvation

    ---
    � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANTIR to Bogomips on Wed May 14 13:44:04 2025
    Re: I am third
    By: Bogomips to Arelor on Wed May 14 2025 10:20 am


    God First, Everyone else second. I am third.
    I stated in the other sub that to love someone else other than God is a sin.

    Well:

    1Jn 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

    1Jn 4:19 We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God" yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.



    --
    gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

    ---
    ￭ Synchronet ￭ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From jimmylogan@VERT/DIGDIST to Bogomips on Sat May 17 20:02:37 2025
    Bogomips wrote to Arelor <=-

    The Modern Interpretation is the problem. Alot of the Bibles people use these days were written less than 100 years ago. to satisfy man. not
    God.

    I agree 'modern interpretation' is a problem, but why do you say the
    Bibles were written less than 100 years ago, and how to satisfy man?

    Serious questions there! I used to be a "King James" guy, because
    that's the way I was raised. I don't knock ANYONE that wants to
    read the King James translation only, but at the same time it is
    still a translation.

    When I read, I like the NIrV, and would be happy to elaborate on
    WHY. But when I'm studying and want to get to the meat of it all,
    I will use KJV+ in my software. That is the King James with the
    original Hebrew or Greek words with Strong's Concordance references.

    So, in essense, I'm reading the best I can in the original languages
    with English translation information.

    For over 50 years I went to a catholic church. It wasn't until I went
    to a Southern Baptist Service that I learned more about our Lord and Saviour in ~1 hour than 50 years prior.

    I am NOT about to run down the Catholic church, even though I hear
    other Protestants doing so. But I have heard from ex-Catholics that
    the 'homilies' they hear (what we would call sermons) didn't really
    include the Gospel. Is that true?


    ... (Tagline under construction)
    --- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    � Synchronet � Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Bogomips@VERT to jimmylogan on Sun May 18 14:44:33 2025
    Re: Re: I am third
    By: jimmylogan to Bogomips on Sat May 17 2025 08:02 pm

    I agree 'modern interpretation' is a problem, but why do you say the
    Bibles were written less than 100 years ago, and how to satisfy man?

    The reason being, there are newer versions that leave out scripture that is originally in the KJV. It is my belief that a person can read whatever they like, but if your going to teach, make it the KJV

    ---
    � Synchronet � Vertrauen � Home of Synchronet � [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From jimmylogan@VERT/DIGDIST to Bogomips on Mon May 19 14:52:18 2025
    Bogomips wrote to jimmylogan <=-

    Re: Re: I am third
    By: jimmylogan to Bogomips on Sat May 17 2025 08:02 pm

    I agree 'modern interpretation' is a problem, but why do you say the
    Bibles were written less than 100 years ago, and how to satisfy man?

    The reason being, there are newer versions that leave out scripture
    that is originally in the KJV. It is my belief that a person can read whatever they like, but if your going to teach, make it the KJV

    I have had MANY discussions about this very topic recently...

    I don't knock ANYONE for wanting to study the KJV themselves,
    but to insist that it's what should be TAUGHT and nothing else?
    That I don't agree with...

    Can you give an example of scriptures left out? And when you say
    left out of the KJV, you realize that things like the NIV are NOT
    translations OF the King James, but go back to the original
    languages...

    And one more question - and I'm being totally serious about this -
    why KJV and not 1611? Or Tyndale? They were "English translations"
    before the modern King James (and no, not talking about what is
    called the New King James.)




    ... AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse
    --- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    � Synchronet � Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com