Wisdom of Solomon ignored by Christians Today?


bluedog
Avatar
#1
from
Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary
on Proverbs 23
--


Be not ruled by senses, but by reason and religion. Covet not that which pleases the eye, in hopes that it will please the taste; but let thy serious thoughts correct the errors of thy senses and convince thee that that which seems delightful is really hurtful, and resolve against it accordingly. Let not the heart walk after the eye, for it is a deceitful guide." 2. "Be not too bold with the charms of this or any other sin; look not, lest thou lust, lest thou take the forbidden fruit." Note Those that would be kept from any sin must keep themselves from all the occasions and beginnings of it, and be afraid of coming within the reach of its allurements, lest they be overcome by them.

The above link is expounds much more of course, pertaining to alcohol use specifically but all sin generally. The consequences of prurient behavior is discussed and that resulting destructiveness should be avoided at all costs. Here is another passage:

It makes men impure and insolent, v. 33. (1.) The eyes grow unruly and behold strange women to lust after them, and so let in adultery into the heart. Est Venus in vinis-Wine is oil to the fire of lust. Thy eyes shall behold strange things (so some read it); when men are drunk the house turns round with them, and every thing looks strange to them, so that them they cannot trust their own eyes. (2.) The tongue also grows unruly and talks extravagantly; by it the heart utters perverse things, things contrary to reason, religion, and common civility, which they would be ashamed to speak if they were sober. What ridiculous incoherent nonsense men will talk when they are drunk who at another time will speak admirably well and to the purpose!

Is our impulse to sin still ever so destructive for us, while we know and love God? Have you experience coping with such struggles of the carnal mind versus the Holy Spirit which indwells all of us, while we know the Lord?

Isn't sin black and white, while even todays religions paint things gray?
 
Cliffy
#2
You painted them green!
 
SirJosephPorter
#3
The consequences of prurient behavior is discussed and that resulting destructiveness should be avoided at all costs.

Isn't sin black and white, while even todays religions paint things gray?

And just what makes you think that sin is destructive, bluedog? What is the biggest sin of all? That is not to believe in God. I have been committing that sin for a long time now, it hasn’t hurt me any.

There is sin and there is sin. Some sins can be harmful, while some others are not harmful.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#4
You bet, Sir Joe. The 7 cardinal sins and the 4 cardinal virtues are a lot better to go on than the 10 commandments. Or even better is what the Christians call the "Golden Rule" but was written in different forms by different peoples long before Christians got a hold on it.
 
Northboy
Avatar
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by bluedogView Post

from
Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary
on Proverbs 23
Proverbs 23:30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go
Be not ruled by senses, but by reason and religion. Covet not that which pleases the eye, in hopes that it will please the taste; but let thy serious thoughts correct the errors of thy senses and convince thee that that which seems delightful is really hurtful, and resolve against it accordingly. Let not the heart walk after the eye, for it is a deceitful guide." 2. "Be not too bold with the charms of this or any other sin; look not, lest thou lust, lest thou take the forbidden fruit." Note Those that would be kept from any sin must keep themselves from all the occasions and beginnings of it, and be afraid of coming within the reach of its allurements, lest they be overcome by them.
The above link is expounds much more of course, pertaining to alcohol use specifically but all sin generally. The consequences of prurient behavior is discussed and that resulting destructiveness should be avoided at all costs. Here is another passage:

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Is the Wisdom of Solomon ignored by today's Christians. Yes. Later versions of the Bible remove this whole book.

Christian's by and large think they're exempt from the Father's law of Cause and Effect, but Christ even said that you would reap what you sow. I put all these discussion about improper conduct into this framework---Like Solomon would have and did.

Have you read the Wisdom of Solomon?

A little exerpt:
"Wise men in plenty are the world's salvation, and a prudent King is the sheet-anchor mof his people. Learn what I have to teach you, and it will be good for you."
Last edited by Northboy; Jul 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 AM..
 
bluedog
Avatar
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

The consequences of prurient behavior is discussed and that resulting destructiveness should be avoided at all costs.

Isn't sin black and white, while even todays religions paint things gray?

And just what makes you think that sin is destructive, bluedog? What is the biggest sin of all? That is not to believe in God. I have been committing that sin for a long time now, it hasn’t hurt me any.

There is sin and there is sin. Some sins can be harmful, while some others are not harmful.

*******************************************

For an atheist to admits he sins leaves me wondering. The meaning of sin is "to miss the mark" according the greek. Cliffy has studied the lexicon and knows this.
As a devout atheist however you have been set no mark to miss, only those that you set for yourself.
I presented this in a Christian Discussion, with a faith thread.
Solomon was King of Israel, Son of David, not Christian, but a man of Great Faith. He still is seen by most in the world to be a man of the greatest wisdom.

All sin needs to be forgiven. Before Christ and today. It must be Presented to the most High God in all humility. It is Blasphemy to insult the Creator, and His Son, Our Savior, ignoring His Holiness. When we are expounding to all our selfish pride we can impune that Love of The Father that was ours freely given. Atheists cannot blaspheme for they know not God, ...not yet.

Therefore you exclude yourself of any opinion.
 
Cliffy
Avatar
#7
So, what you are saying is, if a person agrees with you, they can post on your thread but if they don't they have no right to offer their opinion. Interesting. Sounds a little dictatorial, dontcha think?
 
coldstream
Avatar
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by NorthboyView Post

Is the Wisdom of Solomon ignored by today's Christians. Yes. Later versions of the Bible remove this whole book.

Christian's by and large think they're exempt from the Father's law of Cause and Effect, but Christ even said that you would reap what you sow. I put all these discussion about improper conduct into this framework---Like Solomon would have and did.

Have you read the Wisdom of Solomon?

A little exerpt:
"Wise men in plenty are the world's salvation, and a prudent King is the sheet-anchor mof his people. Learn what I have to teach you, and it will be good for you."

If you pick up a Catholic Version of the Bible, you'll find the Old Testament has 46 Chapters compared to 39 in Protestant Versions, including the Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees and some minor prophets. The Protestant translations tend to remove (or loosely translate) things that do not correspond to Luther's doctrine of Salvation through Faith alone. Maccabees was removed because it forms one of the bases of the Catholic axiom of Purgatory. So they were never really removed, just expurgated from some later texts for reasons of dogmatic purity.
Last edited by coldstream; Jul 23rd, 2009 at 01:59 PM..
 
SirJosephPorter
#9
Coldstream, I think Catholic Ten Commandments are also a little different from Protestant Ten Commandments.
 
SirJosephPorter
#10
For an atheist to admits he sins leaves me wondering. The meaning of sin is "to miss the mark" according the greek. Cliffy has studied the lexicon and knows this.

That is your meaning of sin, bluedog. I equate sinful with illegal. To me, noting is sin if it is legal.

And I very well know the meaning of sin (to miss the mark). To me sinning is missing the mark legally. So most of the actions that you regard as sinful (abortion, contraception, homosexuality, premarital sex etc.), I don’t regard them as sinful.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

If you pick up a Catholic Version of the Bible, you'll find the Old Testament has 46 Chapters compared to 39 in Protestant Versions, including the Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees and some minor prophets. The Protestant translations tend to remove (or loosely translate) things that do not correspond to Luther's doctrine of Salvation through Faith alone. Maccabees was removed because it forms one of the bases of the Catholic axiom of Purgatory. So they were never really removed, just expurgated from some later texts for reasons of dogmatic purity.

aaaahhh Kinda like a brick short of a wall.

(Kidding.)

Wonder what else has been left out.
 
MHz
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by bluedogView Post

The above link is expounds much more of course, pertaining to alcohol use specifically but all sin generally. The consequences of prurient behavior is discussed and that resulting destructiveness should be avoided at all costs.

Is our impulse to sin still ever so destructive for us, while we know and love God? Have you experience coping with such struggles of the carnal mind versus the Holy Spirit which indwells all of us, while we know the Lord?

Isn't sin black and white, while even todays religions paint things gray?

Since that chapter mention several things, it would seem to point to excesses in general. Wealth is not bad in itself, the things some people do in chasing wealth can involve crimes against society or individuals. In the chase for that you miss on what really matters in the end. Relationships between people. Say a person acquires great wealth and that surrounds him with many 'important' people who are also wealthy. Should that wealth vanish so do those 'important' people. In the crash of 1920's and 30's many rich people became poor overnight. How many took their lives compared to those that were already poor (money wise).
Do we have a natural tendency to sin? I don't think so but since sinners seem to acquire all the really expensive material things they has to be a degree of envy from some who admire them and their social standing.
Today's Churches are more of a business than a simple house of prayer. The are anything but poor and attracting 'clients' is how they acquire wealth so they are naturally (greed) going to whitewash sin as to keep the sinners in their congregation. They cannot preach that yes people will sin but grace and mercy cover many sins automatically as it is a free gift. Even more sins can be forgiven by a prayer of repentance (a bit more involved than this indicates). The ultimate way to have sins removed is by dieing, the punishment God mentioned in the Garden. If you die and are then awoke you are sin free. It is not a time for the beginning of punishment, as some would try to promote as that is a sound teaching in Scripture. If the Churches taught that they would all be empty after that message was given. That sounds like the freedom to sin at every opportunity, God would never promote that so the was it goes is like this. Once having knowledge of grace and you sin with the thought that grace will cover the sin forgiveness is made null and void. That is said plainly only once.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

And just what makes you think that sin is destructive, bluedog? What is the biggest sin of all? That is not to believe in God. I have been committing that sin for a long time now, it hasn’t hurt me any.

We haven't come to the point in time were those people are dealth with.

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

You bet, Sir Joe. The 7 cardinal sins and the 4 cardinal virtues are a lot better to go on than the 10 commandments. Or even better is what the Christians call the "Golden Rule" but was written in different forms by different peoples long before Christians got a hold on it.

LOL Are you serious? Since somebody said killing was wrong before it was given in Scripture (actual date) that makes . Cain was punished, that was long before the 10 came into effect. Would the ones pertaining to God (if followed)promote a healty relationship between a person and God. Woud the ones pertaining to people (if followed) promote a healthy and long-lasting relationship between strangers (family is slightly different as you are stuck with them for better or worse).

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Sounds a little dictatorial, dontcha think?

Dictator, isn't that an atheist word? Sad not interesting.

Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

To me sinning is missing the mark legally. So most of the actions that you regard as sinful (abortion, contraception, homosexuality, premarital sex etc.), I don’t regard them as sinful.

So if you moved to a place where they were against the law then you would see them as sins? What if the became sins here, would you change your view? If something is a sin now would you lobby to have it deems legal?
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#13
There are those of us who aren't naturally prone to "sin" and have the integrity to resist temptations.
 
gopher
#14
prurient behavior???

then why did he have over a thousand wives, concubines, and mistresses????
 
gopher
Avatar
#15
''Isn't sin black and white''

The Bible tells the wealthy to give their wealth to the poor. But rich Republicans have no moral scruples about keeping all that money to themselves. I wonder why this is never discussed by Republicans.
 
SirJosephPorter
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

There are those of us who aren't naturally prone to "sin" and have the integrity to resist temptations.

Indeed. I think most individuals have their own moral compass and that compass is quite accurate (there are exceptions obviously).

Most of us know that murder is wrong, that rape, robbery, assault are wrong. We don’t need any religion to tell us that.
 
Liberalman
Avatar
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by bluedogView Post

from
Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary
on Proverbs 23
Proverbs 23:30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go
Be not ruled by senses, but by reason and religion. Covet not that which pleases the eye, in hopes that it will please the taste; but let thy serious thoughts correct the errors of thy senses and convince thee that that which seems delightful is really hurtful, and resolve against it accordingly. Let not the heart walk after the eye, for it is a deceitful guide." 2. "Be not too bold with the charms of this or any other sin; look not, lest thou lust, lest thou take the forbidden fruit." Note Those that would be kept from any sin must keep themselves from all the occasions and beginnings of it, and be afraid of coming within the reach of its allurements, lest they be overcome by them.
The above link is expounds much more of course, pertaining to alcohol use specifically but all sin generally. The consequences of prurient behavior is discussed and that resulting destructiveness should be avoided at all costs. Here is another passage:

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I can't read the green type can you re-post that part in a darker colour Bluedog?
 
bluedog
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Coldstream, I think Catholic Ten Commandments are also a little different from Protestant Ten Commandments.

******************************************

You are a kick! Show us the differences please.
Moses was Moses God is God now and forever Amen!!
Phrasing could be different with each translation but the core remains the core. No really link us up with this claim.

Like NOW!! lol !!!!
Cliffy your extensive studies put you where on this statement?
(Oh ya Cliff, I wanted an honest personal discussion with Christians men and women or people of faith actually. That is why I posted it here...
for a wee bit less, ummm, sidetracking?
 
bluedog
Avatar
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

For an atheist to admits he sins leaves me wondering. The meaning of sin is "to miss the mark" according the greek. Cliffy has studied the lexicon and knows this.

That is your meaning of sin, bluedog. I equate sinful with illegal. To me, noting is sin if it is legal.

And I very well know the meaning of sin (to miss the mark). To me sinning is missing the mark legally. So most of the actions that you regard as sinful (abortion, contraception, homosexuality, premarital sex etc.), I don’t regard them as sinful.

***********************************************

Why use a spiritual term for your legal opinion?
Why not the word "crime", as in criminal, a person who commits an offense or an act of missing that mark against social law?


We are referring to spiritual laws. Clearly, you admit you are not.
 
Northboy
Avatar
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

If you pick up a Catholic Version of the Bible, you'll find the Old Testament has 46 Chapters compared to 39 in Protestant Versions, including the Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees and some minor prophets. The Protestant translations tend to remove (or loosely translate) things that do not correspond to Luther's doctrine of Salvation through Faith alone. Maccabees was removed because it forms one of the bases of the Catholic axiom of Purgatory. So they were never really removed, just expurgated from some later texts for reasons of dogmatic purity.

Actually, the Bible I have which contains the apocrypha is a New English, published in 1961. I guess the scholars at Oxford decided to put them back in.Also this version is not broken into verses and the writings are narratives like they would have been in the original texts.

I didn't realize that the Roman Catholics related Maccabees to purgatory. I find that book contains some things about Judah of that day.

This thread was entitled " Wisdom of Solomon ignored by Christians today?"

I thought we were going to have a discussion regarding the Wisdom of Solomon but that doesn't seem to be the case. Too bad.
 
Walter
Avatar
#21
You sound like O'Bama; telling lies.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

The Bible tells the wealthy to give their wealth to the poor. But rich Republicans have no moral scruples about keeping all that money to themselves. I wonder why this is never discussed by Republicans.



April 1, 2008 1:00 AM

Barack as Scrooge?
Charitable priorities.

By Arthur C. Brooks

As Barack Obama found out last week, when you run for president you can’t even get away with being a lousy giver to charity. After Mr. and Mrs. Obama released their tax returns, the press quickly noticed that, between 2000 and 2004, they gave less than one percent of their income to charity, far lower than the national average. Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit).



According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.



Before we dismiss this explanation, it is worth noting that this is not an uncommon upper-income excuse for not giving. According to 2000 data from the Independent Sector (a trade group for nonprofit organizations), among people with above-average incomes who do not give charitably, a majority actually say it is because they don’t have enough money.

You’d think that the only Americans with the nerve to use such an excuse for not giving would be the poor. But in fact, it is the poor — specifically the working poor — who can most teach upper-class misers a charity lesson. The working poor are America’s most generous givers when we measure giving as a percentage of income. Most studies have shown that the working poor tend to give away between four and five percent of their incomes, on average, while the rich give away between three and four percent. (Both groups give away significantly more than the middle class.)

The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2005, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)
Last edited by Walter; Jul 24th, 2009 at 10:41 AM..
 
Walter
Avatar
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

The Bible tells the wealthy to give their wealth to the poor. But rich Republicans have no moral scruples about keeping all that money to themselves. I wonder why this is never discussed by Republicans.

Joe Biden and American Charity
What his tax returns mean.

By Byron York

It has become a common practice, when a presidential candidate releases his or her tax returns, for reporters and pundits to examine how much the candidate gave to charity. In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent — to charity.” Other stories about other candidates routinely included figures on charitable giving.

Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.

Here is a chart of the Bidens’ giving for the years covered by the tax returns:
Adjusted
Gross Income Charity
1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995
Total $2,450,042 $3,690
To take Biden’s worst year, 1999, one percent of his adjusted gross income would have been $2,100. One half of one percent would have been $1,050. One quarter of one percent would have been $525. One eighth of one percent would have been $262. And one sixteenth of one percent would have been $131 — still a bit more than the Bidens gave.
 
darkbeaver
Avatar
#23
The Old Testament makes it clear that Moses was neither a Hebrew nor an Israelite. Exodus 2:19 specifically refers to Moses as "an Egyptian".

Read more: --

Moses is described in the Old Testament as being "an Egyptian" and "slow of speech" in the language of the Israelites. Ahmed Osman believes that Moses was in fact the Pharoah Akhenaten. Akhenaten introduced monotheism and closed the temples making himself extremely unpopular. He was later forced to abdicate and banished from Egypt. He returned to lead his supporters out of Egypt to a new life.

Read more: --

 
Walter
Avatar
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

The Bible tells the wealthy to give their wealth to the poor. But rich Republicans have no moral scruples about keeping all that money to themselves. I wonder why this is never discussed by Republicans.



From the issue dated November 23, 2006


Charity's Political Divide

Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
By Ben Gose
It's been a tough month for conservatives, with the Republican Party losing control of both houses of Congress, but a new book being released this week may help brighten their spirits.
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
HOW POLITICS AND CHARITABLE GIVING MIX
Voting Patterns in 2004

Charitable Giving Trends in 2001


SOURCE: Who Really Cares (Basic Books)
 
SirJosephPorter
#25
You are a kick! Show us the differences please.

Sorry bluedog, but we have discussed this issue many times (you were not involved in the discussion, of course). Just Google for Ten Commandments and you will get a listing of Catholic, Jewish and Protestant Ten Commandments. They are all slightly different.

The main difference is that Catholics do not have the Commandment about not making a graven image, that is something Martin Luther inserted on his own. Catholics have no problem making graven images, one sees images of Jesus and Mary all the time.

In order to make up for the one Commandment that Catholics are short, they break up one of the Protestant Commandment further down the line into two. Or more accurately, Martin Luther combined two Commandments into one, to still give him the magic number of ten.

As I said, Google for it. If you cannot find it, let me know and I will find it for you.
 
SirJosephPorter
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by bluedogView Post

***********************************************

Why use a spiritual term for your legal opinion?
Why not the word "crime", as in criminal, a person who commits an offense or an act of missing that mark against social law?


We are referring to spiritual laws. Clearly, you admit you are not.

And what is wrong with using spiritual references? In fact I use Biblical imagery in my posts many times, there is nothing wrong with that.
 
AnnaG
Avatar
#27
Wiki does a pretty good job of displaying the differences between the 10 commandments versions:

--

Anyway, I'd like to point out that the fabled wisdom of Solomon escapes most people most of the time, not just Christians.
 
SirJosephPorter
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Wiki does a pretty good job of displaying the differences between the 10 commandments versions:

--

Anyway, I'd like to point out that the fabled wisdom of Solomon escapes most people most of the time, not just Christians.

Thanks Anna. I knew it was fairly easy to locate, I have done it myself before (as I said, we have had this discussion before, in this very forum). I just wanted bluedog to work for it.
 
MHz
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Wiki does a pretty good job of displaying the differences between the 10 commandments versions:

--

Anyway, I'd like to point out that the fabled wisdom of Solomon escapes most people most of the time, not just Christians.

So the concept of there is an exception to the rule, is absolute?
God gave His wisdom in more than one book, apparently things have to progress at a certain pace since the fall in Eden.
Here is one question about the relationship between God and Christ and the Holy Spirit.
(for this spiritual experiment the Holy Spirit is the voice that comes from the Throne(s) in Heaven, he/she/it is what puts God's spoken words manifest on a human timeline)
What goes on in this place is basically known as in Heaven so be it on the earth. In the matter of sinners 1/3 of the former angels are expelled to the realm the original sinner (satan) dwell along with all his laws. Same as from the first murder in all of time, between men at any rate. Duh, create a place called the grave that is never visited. What is wisdom in the most basic form about the grave. Mostly that if you were born you will die (at current course and speed).
Christians do have the right to expound and clarify issues originally mentioned in the the OT. Know of any writings that can claim to know the wisdom in this 'chat that was not written down'

Lu:24:27:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

What He did was highlight the passages (maybe even just a few words).
If you tend to want to view Christ's return as flowery then the first day is not going to impress you in any way shape or form.
In our world the verse below would mean what to you at today's first thought?
Some time ago
2Co:12:2:
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body,
I cannot tell;
or whether out of the body,
I cannot tell:
God knoweth
such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Our astronomy buffs have yet do decide entirely if multi-verses can exist. Yet this is a casual reference rather than something that is exclaimed throughout the land with great vigor.
Last edited by MHz; Jul 24th, 2009 at 10:52 PM..
 
Cliffy
Avatar
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by bluedogView Post

******************************************

You are a kick! Show us the differences please.
Moses was Moses God is God now and forever Amen!!
Phrasing could be different with each translation but the core remains the core. No really link us up with this claim.

Like NOW!! lol !!!!
Cliffy your extensive studies put you where on this statement?
(Oh ya Cliff, I wanted an honest personal discussion with Christians men and women or people of faith actually. That is why I posted it here...
for a wee bit less, ummm, sidetracking?

SirJoe is right, there is a difference between catholic and KJ versions of the commandments and many other parts and interpretations. Books and passages have been added and removed, translations have altered (just look at the JW version. It bares little resemblance to either catholic or KJ versions.) There are so many new translations that it is hard to see any consistancy at all.

I also like the way believers gloss over contradictions and then deny there are any. The NT contradicts the OT almost in its entirety so I fail to see why they even bother with the OT. It is not even accurate history.
 

Similar Threads

1
Wisdom....
by rufus | Jul 22nd, 2009
0
Aid finally reaches remote Solomon Islands
by CBC News | Apr 10th, 2007
57
Solomon is the 666th name in the Bible
by alasdair | Dec 30th, 2006
no new posts