Of course the scriptures have something to say about tradition too.Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
Matthew 15:2-6
Mark 7:3-13
Colossians 2:8
gotta go to Jersey, bro.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Absolutely agreed. And this is the main thing that always gets me into an unnecessary argument with nobody in particular. lol.
If you ever feel like reading another Bible, I recommend the Noah Webster KJV. He was fluent in Hebrew and Greek. Noah also penned the very first American dictionary.
Of course, you can still say, well hey, how do I know that's the true Word of God. But that might be a question that you'll always have no matter what. And that's your business, not mine. Of course, even the Latin Bible was an egregious form of Church Latin understood only by the Bishops whom, as such, had the luxury of teaching whatever they wanted so that the Church couldn't ever be brought into question. Don't believe me? Look up William Tyndale. lolol. Poor William was strangled, and then burned just in case he wasn’t dead, for translating the Bible into English.
Check out the Preface for the Noah Webster KJV...
PREFACE.
--------
The English version of the sacred scriptures, now in general use, was
first published in the year 1611, in the reign of James I. Although
the translators made many alterations in the language of former
versions, yet no small part of the language is the same, as that of
the versions made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
In the present version, the language is, in general, correct and
perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin; peculiarly
adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity with
beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
ought not to be altered.
But in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place,
which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure
the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen into
disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is
not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and
who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false
ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
original languages, they do not present to the reader the 'Word of
God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
injurious.
In my own view of this subject, a version of the scriptures for
popular use, should consist of words expressing the sense which is
most common, in popular usage, so that the 'first ideas' suggested to
the reader should be the true meaning of such words, according to the
original languages. That many words in the present version, fail to
do this, is certain. My principal aim is to remedy this evil.
The inaccuracies in grammar, such as 'which' for 'who', 'his' for
'its', 'shall' for 'will', 'should' for 'would', and others, are very
numerous in the present version.
There are also some quaint and vulgar phrases which are not relished
by those who love a pure style, and which are not in accordance with
the general tenor of the language. To these may be added many words
and phrases, very offensive to delicacy and even to decency. In the
opinion of all persons with whom I have conversed on this subject,
such words and phrases ought not to be retained in the version.
Language which cannot be uttered in company without a violation of
decorum, or the rules of good breeding, exposes the scriptures to the
scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their authority, and multiplies or
confirms the enemies of our holy religion.
These considerations, with the approbation of respectable men, the
friends of religion and good judges of this subject, have induced me
to undertake the task of revising the language of the common version
of the scriptures, and of presenting to the public an edition with
such amendments, as will better express the true sense of the
original languages, and remove objections to particular parts of the
phraseology.
In performing this task, I have been careful to avoid unnecessary
innovations, and to retain the general character of the style. The
principal alterations are comprised in three classes.
1. The substitution of words and phrases now in good use, for such as
are wholly obsolete, or deemed below the dignity and solemnity of the
subject.
2. The correction of errors in grammar.
3. The insertion of euphemisms, words and phrases which are not very
offensive to delicacy, in the place of such as cannot, propriety, be
uttered before a promiscuous audience.
A few errors in the translation, which are admitted on all hands to be obvious, have been
corrected; and some obscure passages, illustrated. In making these amendments, I have consulted
the original languages, and also several translations and commentaries. In the body of the work, my
aim has been to 'preserve', but, in certain passages, more clearly to 'express', the sense of the
present version.
The language of the Bible has no inconsiderable influence in forming and preserving our national
language. On this account, the language of the common version ought to be correct in grammatical
construction, and in the use of appropriate words. This is the more important, as men who are
accustomed to read the Bible with veneration, are apt to contract a predilection for its phraseology,
and thus to become attached to phrases which are quaint or obsolete. This may be a real misfortune;
for the use of words and phrases, when they have ceased to be a part of the living language, and
appear odd or singular, impairs the purity of the language, and is apt to create a disrelish for it in
those who have not, by long practice, contracted a like predilection. It may require some effort to
subdue this predilection; but it may be done, and for the sake of the rising generation, it is
desirable. The language of the scriptures ought to be pure, chaste, simple and perspicuous, free
from any words or phrases which may excite observation by their singularity; and neither debased
by vulgarisms, nor tricked out with the ornaments of affected elegance.
As there are diversities of tastes among men, it is not to be expected that the alterations I have
made in the language of the version will please all classes of readers. Some persons will think I
have done too little; others, too much. And probably the result would be the same, were a revision
to be executed by any other hand, or even by the joint labors of many hands. All I can say is, that I
have executed this work in the manner which, in my judgment, appeared to be the best.
To avoid giving offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly made any
alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the different denominations rely for the
support of their peculiar tenets.
In this country there is no legislative power which claims to have the right to prescribe what
version of the scriptures shall be used in the churches, or by the people. And as all human opinions
are fallible, it is doubtless for the interest of religion that no authority should be exerted in this case,
except by commendation.
At the same time, it is very important that all denominations of Christians should use the same
version, that in all public discourses, treatises and controversies, the passages cited as authorities
should be uniform. Alterations in the popular version should not be frequent; but the changes
incident to all living languages render it not merely expedient, but necessary at times to introduce
such alterations as will express the true sense of the original languages, in the current language of
the age. A version thus amended may require no alteration for two or three centuries to come.
In this undertaking, I subject myself to the charge of arrogance; but I am not conscious of being
actuated by any improper motive. I am aware of the sensitiveness of the religious public on this
subject; and of the difficulties which attend the performance. But all men whom I have consulted,
if they have thought much on the subject, seem to be agreed in the opinion, that it is high time to
have a revision of the common version of the scriptures; although no person appears to know how
or by whom such revision is to be executed. In my own view, such revision is not merely a matter
of expedience, but of moral duty; and as I have been encouraged to undertake this work, by
respectable literary and religious characters, I have ventured to attempt a revision upon my own
responsibility. If the work should fail to be well received, the loss will be my own, and I hope no
injury will be done. I have been painfully solicitous that no error should escape me. The reasons
for the principal alterations introduced, will be found in the explanatory notes.
The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is 'good', and the best corrector of all that is 'evil', in
human society; the 'best' book for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the 'only book' that
can serve as an infallible guide to future felicity. With this estimate of its value, I have attempted
to render the English version more useful, by correcting a few obvious errors, and removing some
obscurities, with objectionable words and phrases; and my earnest prayer is, that my labors may not
be wholly unsuccessful.
N. W.
https://www.amazon.com/Webster-Bible...+webster+bible
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-24-2017 at 06:06 PM.
That's not an elephant, that's a hippo.gotta go to Jersey, bro.
Don't forget 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2, etc, etc., btw.~hugs~ (and of course the Ecumenical councils that assembled all those scriptures into a bible for you)
What's that mean? Just tell me, please. I don't want a link to somebody else's babbles. Thanks.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-24-2017 at 06:57 PM.
Obviously a RINO.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Yeah, I knew it didn't smell quite like a hippo, it is a Rino.
How very sad. Are you actually doubting the most important truth, that we should love God and love others? There are some things that we as Christians should know intuitively. We don't have to worry about Bible versions or the bible being changed or agendas of "church leaders" to discern certain basic, obvious truths.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
People are not animals.
<shrug>
Ok. Let's talk about rational beings, being able to see the consequence of their actions into the future.
you don't think, for the sake of their descendants, if they knew it was gonna be this much trouble and burden on their descendants, they would not have pick the GD cotton themselves?
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
I would have been growing something better than cotton . Done the picking muhself .
Do something Danke
You know , now that I think about it , having a cotton farm where you cannot harvest your crop without unpaid labor seems kind of retarded .
Do something Danke
I agree. Do you believe animals were created by God?
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Yes, with a "but".
Lily,
Have you ever worked with livestock?
As in on a farm, over a year through all 4 seasons...
Cattle, hogs, sheep or even goats?
Just curious.
How sad indeed. It's strange that you would come to this "conclusion" that I somehow do not "love God and love others" simply because I state a purely logical point about doubting words can survive thousands of years of history without being changed. I guess I hate God and my fellow man...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
That not what I was said or meant, you seemed to be doubting that Jesus said that, that's what I was asking you about.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
I doubt things in the Bible that seem to contradict what I see in my world. In my world, God is love. He does not judge, he forgives. I doubt when there are references to some kind of eternal torment for "unbelievers". I doubt where it says God commanded people to kill other people... There are other places where "I doubt". God's love is certainly not one of them...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
What's the but?
Why are you asking, unless you're implying that one needs to work on a farm to have a valid opinion on this matter?
Thanks for your honesty. I didn't think that you doubted God's love. We were talking about the law… And the reason I said something is because when Wooden Indian stated what the law is, according to Jesus… it kind of seemed like you were arguing or doubting that particular point, and for some reason that surprised/saddened me. But anyway, I'm sorry if I was rude. I better stop now, because I seem to keep sticking my foot in my mouth.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
I am, as I stated, curious.....
I've found over the years that most, not all, animal rights activists have never actually cared for animals.
You're entitled to whatever opinion you feel like having and if animal welfare is as important to you as it sounds then maybe some first hand experience would make you feel good about actually treating animals as you'd like to see them treated....
I've cared for animals all my life. I'm talking about pets, of course, but like I said, I don't think that one has to have experience working on a farm, to legitimately be a voice for the animals. As for what you said… I think that many animal rights activists do have experience with animals because typically they are people who love animals.
BTW, there are a number of cattle ranchers who had a change of heart, turned their ranch into animal sanctuaries and went vegan.
Here are a couple vids...
There are many more stories, you can read about some here: Former Meat and Dairy Farmers Who Became Vegan Activists
The thing is, we've been so conditioned for so many years to think a certain way about animals… And it is so deeply ingrained that when anyone opposes it, it sounds ludicrous. I know, because I was on the other side for a long time. I was a very enthusiastic carnivore for most of my life, and I remember saying many times, "I could never be a vegetarian or vegan, because I love eating meat too much." I've heard that many vegetarians/vegans said the same thing in the past. So it really is a huge change of mind and heart, and a completely different perspective...as I said, one that may sound crazy to others at first, due to years of deeply ingrained tradition and habit.
But I think it's a good thing to examine one's beliefs, and to think about certain things we do that don't make much sense. For example, as I've mentioned before, pigs are as smart or smarter than dogs, they have personalities and feelings like dogs do. Yet we love one and torture and eat the other. Why? Because we've always been taught that pigs are food and dogs are pets. People go to movies like 'Babe' and they cheer for the pig… then they go home and the next day eat bacon. It seems to me that that is cognitive dissonance.
At the very least, wouldn't you agree that people who could not in good conscience personally slaughter a cow or pig should not eat meat? I think that most people or at least a hell of a lot of people would fall into that category. They just need to be shown the reality, as you can see in this video below.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Absolutely not!
It's not my place to determine what anybody but my child eats, certainly not someone I don't know.
Now my son has had his hands in gut piles since he was 2, been shuckin' crawdads on his own since before that, he knows where his meat comes from...
I would no more tell you what to eat than I would those people you would force to watch videos....
That it is not nearly as simple as "God made it".
A Supreme Being put into place systems of biology that have made what we see today.
That includes "apex" predators that are at the top of the food chain and have the highest intelligence levels, because they have adapted to eat the highest quality and most nutrient dense food sources, ie: other animals, or, a combination of all the above.
Grass is not very nutritious for people or cows, which is why you see them doing very little but keeping their faces in the groceries all day and night long.
Of course there are exceptions...elephants come to mind...but just think of how much smarter and cunning they would be, if only they were able to munch on a gazelle's rump every so often.
+rep for proper use of the word crawdads.
Well, I owe ya one, I'm out.
Pets?
#triggered!
How dare you lecture us, when you are enslaving and torturing your own animals.
You are worse than Hitler.
Rutgers law professors say pets are ‘animal slaves,’ argue domestication is form of torture
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nimal-slaves-/
Two Rutgers University law professors have published an essay making a “case against pets,” arguing that domestication of animals is a form of torture that is morally and ethically wrong.
Despite living with six rescue dogs, professors Gary Francione and Anna Charlton describe their pets as “non-human refugees,” according to an article they published on Aeon.co this month.
“Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place,” the couple wrote. “We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.
“When we talk about animal rights, we are talking primarily about one right: the right not to be property,” they continued. “We all reject human chattel slavery. That is not to say that it doesn’t still exist. It does. But no one defends it.”
(Gee whiz, where have I heard THAT argument before???? - AF)
The professors argued that the way animals for food are treated would be considered torture if people endured the same treatment.
And lets not anybody get butt-hurt over that Hitler gag in my last post.
I stole it from Simpsons: (at :50 seconds)
I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying that you would have to tell anyone anything. I was saying that if someone could not in good conscience slaughter a pig or cow for food, they are not acting in line with their conscience by eating meat, wouldn't you agree?
Well, people have different beliefs, but from a biblical perspective, God did not create us to eat each other. Genesis 1 makes it clear that in the very beginning, God created all living beings, humans and animals, to be vegetarian. We've talked about this before on other threads.
Do you honestly believe that a good God would create animals who can suffer and feel pain, who have a strong desire to live and enjoy life.... for the purpose of being caged and tortured and eaten? No, that's not God's original design. At least not according to the Bible, and imo to common sense and intuition.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
~hugs~
Connect With Us