[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: The KJV in Order
Source: KJV
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 20, 2015
Author: Vicomte13
Post Date: 2015-10-20 23:50:09 by Vicomte13
Keywords: None
Views: 5667
Comments: 60

A K A Stone, I told you I would stop posting until I could fully answer you, and I meant it.

I'm not going to recriminate. You said plenty that made my blood boil, but I've decided to take it as sincere concern for what I've said, as opposed to simply trying to bait me.

You've said many times that I don't provide Scripture. I have, but to the extent that I have not provided enough. this e-mail will remedy that.

I've agreed to use the KJV, and just that. No Hebrew, no Greek, no outside interpretive Scripture translations. The KJV has no footnotes, sp there will be no wrangling between us over the authority of footnotes that are not there. It's just the text, and you've said you accept this text as authoritative.

I know that the original KJV contained the Apocrypha also, but I'm not going to use the Apocrypha (even though it's part of the full KJV), because that will simply be another opportunity for a pointless fight. God's law is all in the Protestant canon, so I'll leave that issue be also.

So here we are with the KJV text. I'm going to go through it starting with Genesis 1, and note each place where there is something of particular interest that bears, directly or indirectly, on our discussion of economics and law.

I have to do this because of your very aggressive and hostile tone. You've said that I don't quote Scripture, but I did, at length, so I can see that every single point I make has to be specifically backed by a citation right in the text. Now, I've noticed that you don't write that way at all, and neither does anybody else. But because the things that I say do not fit your tradition, you hold me to a much higher standard than you hold yourself or your allies. You can simply positively assert your tradition as though it is a fact - without citing a word of Scripture - as though the fact that it's your tradition ESTABLISHES it as scripture. But if I do not point cite each and every point, I'm a false prophet, twister of scripture, doing Satan's work, and every other damned thing.

Fine then, I shall meet you all the way, and provide a point cite to every single point I make.

But you won't let it go at that either. Once you have Scripture that demonstrates the point, you'll reject my argument anyway, claiming that I am "twisting Scripture" or "taking it out of context".

The only way I can avoid THAT charge is to present ALL of Scripture - every single thing that is important to the topic, in order from the beginning to the end of Scripture, so that nothing is left out. This is the only way to defeat the charge of "taking it out of context" - to provide the FULL context.

I did something close to that before, and you never even acknowledged it. I think that what I am doing is a fool's errand. YOU are not going to accept what the Scripture says, because the full weight of Scripture, fully deployed, is contrary to your tradition.

So what you will do is what you have already done: you will ignore what I've written, and then say that I'm not reading something right, and that I've presented things out of context.

I know that I cannot win from the beginning of this exercise. I know that you will not be persuaded by Scripture itself. I'm going to go through the full dress battle anyway, line by line, because it deserves to be said, and if you will not be persuaded, others will.

From my perspective, once God's laws and examples have been laid end-to-end, the principles are very clear and there isn't much left to debate, because God is clear.

So, that's what I am going to do, the source I'm going to use, how I'm going to use it, why I am doing it just this way - all the while acknowledging that in the end I do not believe I can win in your court, because I think you have prejudged the case. But maybe seeing God's word laid out for you end to end will break open the prison door of your heart.

"And so we sail, in the confident expectation of a miracle." - the Duke of Medina Sidonia

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning..."

Note that the word is "in", and not "AT". "At the beginning..." would mean a single point of time. "At 10 o'clock", or "At the opening bell", but "In the beginning..." refers to an indeterminate span of time.

If you said "At the start of the first inning" of a baseball game, we would think of the first pitch, but if you said "In the first inning", we would recognize that the subject event occurred during a span of at bats by both sides.

This is important, because some traditions assert that the Bible says that God created everything from nothing in an instant, that it's right there in the first sentence. Actually, that is NOT there in the first sentence. The text does not speak of a point of time - AT the beginning - AT the start - but of a span of time - IN the beginning - IN the first inning. Also, the text does not say that God created the whole universe from nothing. That's a traditional addition to the text. The text itself says that God created "the Heaven" and "the Earth".

We discover in Genesis 1:8 that "the Heaven" is specifically the firmament that God made "in the midst of the waters", in other words the sky. And in 1:10, that :the Earth" specifically means "the dry land", and NOT "the planet".

Does it matter? Yes it does. It matters because in the Creationist/Evolutionist debates, many creationists go too far and assert that the Scriptures say things that they do not say. What they say, using the definitions in the text, is that during the beginning God made the sky and the dry land. Then Genesis goes on after that to describe the filling up of the dry land with things, and the waters with sea creatures.

And so we come to the first commandment, given to the lifeless darkness: "Let there be light!" Genesis 1:3. In 1:5 Genesis will define "Light" as "Day", and darkness as "Night".

And that is where we will stop for tonight. Genesis 1:1 does not support the excessively detailed claims that some make. It is a more general summary.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

#3. To: Vicomte13 (#0)

We discover in Genesis 1:8 that "the Heaven" is specifically the firmament that God made "in the midst of the waters", in other words the sky.

Seems to say water in the sky.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-21   0:19:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)

We discover in Genesis 1:8 that "the Heaven" is specifically the firmament that God made "in the midst of the waters", in other words the sky.

Seems to say water in the sky.

Well, yes - that's why the sky is blue.

Genesis 1:1 says God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Genesis 1:2 speaks twice of water. It says that the Earth was "without form and void" - formless and empty. Remember that Genesis 1:10 tells us that God calls the dry land "Earth", but that he doesn't cause the dry land to appear until the third day. In the beginning, before the third day, there was darkness - light had not been created yet. There was no Heaven (the firmament of the sky). There was only water.

Genesis 1:2 twice says that everything was water at first. It says "darkness was upon the face of the deep", "the deep" meaning the deep waters, the surging abyssal sea. And then it says "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

So, things start with Water.

Then on the first day God commands light into being: "Let there be light!"

On the second day, he creates the sky - the Heaven - by dividing the waters by a "firmament". The waters below are separated from the waters above by the firmament.

The blue sky above is the waters above. Below the firmament is the space of the air, with the water below that (on the second day, the waters below the firmament had not been gathered together into seas, leaving dry land ("Earth") yet).

So the firmament - "the Heaven" as the Gen 1:8 refers to it, divides water above from water below.

The sky is blue - the water above. When the Flood comes in Genesis 7:11, the "fountains of the great deep" - the waters below - were broken up - and "the windows of heaven were opened" - and the water poured through the firmament from above, and surged up through the Earth from below.

Water above, water below - the land between the waters, with the firmament - the sky - "the heaven" - separating the two waters and making the space of air in which man and animals and plants inhabit the dry land.

That's what KJV Genesis says.

In the Hebrew, there is much greater detail and precision - but you resist that knowledge and completely distrust me in conveying it.

So we have what the KJV says, and nothing more.

A few things that the KJV does NOT say:

"Earth" is the planet. No. The KJV says that "Earth" is the dry land.

God made everything out of nothing. No. The KJV never says that.

God made everything in seven 24-hour days. No. The KJV describes God's making of the Land and the firmament of the Heaven, and filling up the land, the seas and the sky with things. It says that God did it in seven "Days", but a day is defined as "light", while the darkness is "night". The Sun and Moon and stars were not placed in the firmament until the fourth day of Genesis (see Gen 1:14), and they are there for signs and seasons. So, one can assert that a solar day and a Biblical "Day", a period of light, are the same things from the Fourth Day onward. For then the Sun is the source of the light that is the Day. But for the First, Second and Third Day, there is nothing to measure the time, and the Bible does not say that those days are 24 hours. Nor did it give the slightest indication that they should be considered 24 hour days.

It is fiction writing, adding to the Bible, and NOT THERE that the first three days were 24-hour days. There is no indication whatever in the KJV (or in the Hebrew) how long those first three periods of Light, those first three days were.

The Biblical account of creation is indeed creation, in seven days, not evolution. But it most certainly is not the description of God creating the universe from nothing in 7 24-hour solar days. The Bible does not say that.

The KJV says what it says, and what it says answers the big question: God made it, but it does not contain the details of length of time, especially for the first three days, and it does not concern itself with life on other planets or any such thing. Nor does it say that there is not life on other planets. It is, in fact, completely silent regarding life anywhere else, and it is completely silent as to the length of the first three days.

And whoever asserts that it isn't needs to provide the specific cite from the KJV that says differently. None exists - they make up those details. They are not biblical.

We start at Genesis 1, and we immediately collide with the Creationist vs. Evolutionist argument. I'm not going to dwell on it. I've cited the Scripture. It says God created the world. It does not say that he created the universe, or the world, "from nothing", and it doesn't say that he did it in seven 24 hour days. It describes the making and filling of the land and sky, and describes seven days - which are periods of light and darkness.

The Hebrew gives us more. "Day" is a word that also means "Order". But you're not going to follow me into Hebrew. With the KJV, we've already said what can be said about early creation. Those who deny creation OR who add details not revealed, are all in error. Now we can move on.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   10:58:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#4) (Edited)

Well, yes - that's why the sky is blue.

It's blue because of Rayleigh scattering of light through the atmosphere. This scattering effect is also responsible for the yellow tint of the sun itself (which is actually white). Also, the reddish color of sunrises/sunsets.

The reddening of sunlight is intensified when the sun is near the horizon, because the density of air and particles near the earth's surface through which sunlight must pass is significantly greater than when the sun is high in the sky. The Rayleigh scattering effect is thus increased, removing virtually all blue light from the direct path to the observer. The remaining unscattered light is mostly of a longer wavelength, and therefore appears to be orange.

The color of the sky has very little connection to water vapor. The sky is blue because of its gaseous components, nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%) and argon (1%). Argon was also discovered by Lord Rayleigh. Brilliant fellow in the late nineteenth century, contributed to many scientific fields.

BTW, the color of water is bluer the deeper it is. Water vapor is far too scattered to affect the color of the sky.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-22   8:59:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: TooConservative (#23)

The color of the sky has very little connection to water vapor.

And water vapor is only a subset of "water" in the English of 1611.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-22   9:42:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

And water vapor is only a subset of "water" in the English of 1611.

So the King James Bible which you kind of use as a pejorative. The King James is written by men and not really the word of God?

Because that is exactly what your words imply.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-22   20:21:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#28)

So the King James Bible which you kind of use as a pejorative. The King James is written by men and not really the word of God?

Because that is exactly what your words imply.

I am using the KJV, and just that, not going outside of it, at your request.

I think that the important words that God said - everything that pertains to our discussion of government and economics - are faithfully recorded in the KJV, which is why I am willing to restrict myself to it.

I'm going in order so that I cannot be accused of taking things "out of context".

I am refraining from going out of the KJV to the Hebrew or the Greek or the Latin or whatever, because of the very charge that you laid on me, that when I go to those foreign languages, I'm just "repeating what somebody else said". That isn't true, but nothing I say will change your mind on that, so to avoid that whole argument I am confining myself to YOUR text, and reading WHAT IT SAYS. I have consulted an etymological dictionary of English to explain why "water" in the KJV English does not simply mean H2O, but liquids and fluids more generally, as that was the word for those things back then. That's not going to the Hebrew or the Latin or anything esoteric. It's simply going to the English and consulting readily available online sources.

What I did with water was to clarify the parameters of that word in 1611. The KJV doesn't say that God separated the H2O from the H2O by the firmament, it says he separated the water/fluid/liquid from the liquid by the firmament.

I pointed out that air is a fluid. Even very attenuated air. We think of space as a vacuum, but it isn't. It is, rather, extremely attenuated air: there are molecules out there, far far apart. It's not empty though, and those molecules are collected by gravity.

So, the KJV's "water" actually does cover a lot of things, if one wishes to see it that way.

That was all I said.

Now you're grousing about my "tone" regarding the King James. I always knew that no matter what I did or said you were not going to be pleased, but I'm just going to ignore the grousing. I'm using the text you demanded, and staying within the lines. I'm reading out the pertinent portions in order, and thereby keeping everything in context. You should be rejoicing at the opportunity to do a walk through the words of God instead of being angry.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-22   22:11:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 32.

#54. To: Vicomte13 (#32) (Edited)

I pointed out that air is a fluid. Even very attenuated air. We think of space as a vacuum, but it isn't. It is, rather, extremely attenuated air: there are molecules out there, far far apart. It's not empty though, and those molecules are collected by gravity.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to blur the lines in basic chemistry.

A solid is not a liquid is not a gas. These are three phases of any element or molecule that depend primarily on environment.

There are named things that are liquid: seas, blood, milk, seed, wine. And then there's "water".

They had specific words they chose to use. That doesn't mean ancient Hebrews were ignorant of other fluids or that they had compound words or words borrowed from other languages to describe various fluids.

For instance, I don't see the word 'urine' in the KJV or other bibles. Based strictly on scripture as you are reading it, would you seriously suggest that the ancient Hebrews lacked words to distinguish urine from other kinds of water? Of course not. The ancients undoubtedly had many words that didn't make it into print and we can't consider it proven that they lacked those words (and concepts) merely because they aren't found in a particular set of texts. The texts show us what words they did use in scripture, not all the words they knew and used routinely.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-24 05:40:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Vicomte13 (#32) (Edited)

To explore the topic of urine more:

2 Kings 18:27 King James Version (KJV)

27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

So we do have an instance of 'piss' in the KJV (and Geneva bible). Other translations like NIV use the word 'urine'.

However, if this verse did not contain the word signifying urine, I would not assume that therefore the ancient Hebrews lacked a word or phrase for it.

BibleGateway: 'piss' in the KJV

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-24 06:35:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com