divorce and remarriage

[Justawoman]

Originally Posted by sonya1530

KJV Acts 18:20
"Thy money perish with thee"

Good News for Modern Man Acts 18:20
"May you and your money go
to hell" (Good news for modern
man) (Peter talking)

I'll tell you what is shocking is that I have no clue what Bible you are reading out of. I am the kind of person I am going to pick up my Bible and go find these verses so I can make a judgement for myself.

Acts 18: 20 does not say what your study paper says. In fact money is not even mentioned. That is the KJV, Living Bible version, The Modern Language Bible, and finally the Revised Standard Version. Go check your sources more closely.


Here is that verse: When they desired [him] to tarry longer time with them, he consented not;

I think James is right. You need to quit using online sources as a complete reference source of truth. Pick up your Bible and double check scriptures. One wrong verse says that someone didn't do their homework or double check their sources. I read the whole chapter and that verse is not in Acts 18 at all.

And all the Biblical studying I have done from child till now tells me that Luke wrote the book of Acts. It was wrote to Theophilus. It covers the growth of the early church.

I think your sutdy paper needed to proof read then they would have caught that the verse is Acts 8: 20. I will agree that Peter is speaking.

[sonya1530]

Justawoman,
You did the right thing to look it up for yourself. To not take my or anyone elses word for it. I assure you that I have checked my sources closely, and I don't know why you guys say that I am using online sources for my source of truth. All I have said is that I am cross referencing the Bibles.
The verse is Acts 8:20, not 18:20. As I also said, I am painstakingly going throught that study paper to check each and every verse. The study paper didn't read wrong, I just typed it wrong. As I said in my email, I had to go back and edit my text because I set it up wrong, and I accidently must have put 18 intead of 8. Honest mistake, and I appreciate you pointing it out, so others didn't get confused also.
Please do what you did before, understanding my honest typo, and let me know if you still think that came from an online source or the actual Word of God.

[Justawoman]

I apologize Sonya. But your post is misleading. Your last train of thought makes one believe that it was an email you recieved and copied here.

Typos do happen.

[sonya1530]

Thanks Justawoman. I'm sorry if it seems misleading.

[sonya1530]

[QUOTE=jamesglewisf]I hope it doesn't sound like I am mad at you. I'm not. I'm a bit frustrated because you seem sincere, but you are getting your theology from the internet -- probably the worst place you can. You need better sources.{/quote]

Thank you for the assurance that you're not mad. It is tough for others to know your countenance through emails. I appreciate your responses and that you are able to hear my heart, even though we may disagree.
Please rest assured that I am not getting my theology from the internet. I have started these studies b/k of the inaccurasies I have seen between the different versions. From that (Bible) I have started on a journey to know the truth. We do use resources in our quest for the truth, but these cannot be taken as truth unless it lines up w/ God's Word. (The best and only source we need). So I appreciate your list of resources and may use them in my continued study, but again, I will not structure my belief system on them or b/k of them. We should be sure to check what the scriptures say even concerning this issue. We can see in scripture what God says concerning scribes (scholars). I've summarized the following.

Mt.23:13 & 15 - (some) Scribes shut the kingdom of heaven to men & make them 2x more the child of hell than themselves.
Mk 1:22 - People were astonished @ Jesus' doctrine b/k it was diff. than the scribes.
Mk. 11:18 - Scribes & priests sought to destroy him
Mk 12:38 - Beware of the scribes
2 Timothy 4:3,4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4)and they shall turn their ears away from the truth and shall be turned to fables.

The word gives us many warnings against trusting in scholars.


You said that,

The King James only theory is akin to a conspiracy theory. It is based upon misinformation and poor facts. You need to read some good books on how we got our Bible.

Can you give me examples of misinformation & poor facts that are in the KJV? B/k when I really look at some things in any other versions, I feel along the same line, concerning them.
Using the Word of God only, I must pose these questions concerning the foloowing verses.

In Luke 11:2 starts the Lord's prayer. Can you recite it in your head, and then look it up in your NASB version. Why does it leave out?
-which art in heaven
-thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth
-but deliver us from evil
Just so you know, it is in it's entire form in Mt. 6:9, but here it's different...why?
Mark 9:29, I Cor 7:5, Acts 10:30 -why leave out fasting?
Mark 13:33 - are we supposed to 'watch & pray' or 'keep on the alert' ?

Why are the new versions replacing (his, he, him & Son) with (the one)? Why are they doing this? Just a couple examples, Matt. 19:17 & John 4:42, & John 1:18.
Do you know that the religions of this world identify their god as "the One"?
Qur'an 112 - "Allah is One"
Bgagavad Gita - "the blessed One"
Tibetian Buddhism - "The Great One"
Druzes - "the one Supreme"

So these new versions are replacing Him, he, Son, Jesus Christ (often leaving Christ only), etc. It is imperative that we understand why. Please remember that the move is to a one world religion.

Do you know that the 1995 revision of the NASV was a revision of the often revised ASV, which was a revision of the RV? Do you know that in that sme printing they fixed dozens and dozens of exposed errors, but the 'new' NASB
fixed them while still getting rid of another 6,966 words!
I would also check out Wescott & Hort. These are 2 men who are influencial in the creation of the new versions. They are also 'fathers' of the modern channeling movement. In the 1850's they launched the 'Ghoustly Guild'. Hort himself referred to evangelical Christians as, "dangerous", perverted", "unsound" and "confused".

I know I seem 'out there', I really do. I am just angry. I am angry that I have been so deceived, but I am so grateful that I am finding this out. I am so frustrated that Satan and the New Age movement has infilltrated and twisted the powerful words of God. My only motive here is to cry out to you all and say, "we are being decieved! Please find out how!"
On judgement day, we cannot point to what others have said as a defense if we have been wrong. We must know, and it must line up with the true Word of God.

New versions say in 2 Tim. 2:15, (NIV) "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved.."
Do your best? Is that all we are now commanded? My best is ugly guys, I don't know about you. I would urge us to,
2 Tim. 2:15 (KJV) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

[Alec]

He didn't say that the KJV contained misinformation and poor facts. He said that the "King James only theory" is based upon misinformation and poor facts.

Sonya, no offence, but your last post just proved James' point. You used the internet to do your research and pulled up the "Westcot and Hort" conspiracy theory.

[sonya1530]

Alec, my question would still be, how is the KJV only 'theory' based upon misinformation and poor facts.
You are wrong Alec. I did not use the internet to do my research. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I almost didn't even put that in there, b/k I wanted the focus to be on the God's word. I knew that that might be the only thing people focused on. You are pointing to 2 paragraphs and not commenting on the majority of it (scripture), and then telling me that I used the internet. All I've done is encouraged us to go to the scripture for our truth. Any other historical info. that I have included, you can research yourself. Internet, library, books, whatever you choose. My 'theology' is based on the Word of God and I am only encouraging others to rely on that for the MAIN source of truth, and to judge everything else against it.
It seems that the whole point is either being misunderstood or ignored. But I can't do anything about that. I can only try to shed some light about what I have found.
I am not here to stir up trouble with anybody. We do what we want with the info we are given and I have said what I know, the best I can, with the best of intentions.

[Radu]

Sonya, I just finished a college course on the Bible, which was not affiliated with any religious group or organization. In it, we used a book called Understanding the Bible, by Stephen L Harris, which is a very factual look at the history of the Bible texts. I know you don't like "scholars", per se, but this will give you an understanding of why there are so many variations in the different versions. I'll just quote portions of it, since it explains it better than me:

Our knowledge of the Bible's formation and transmission is severely limited by the fact that not a single scrap of any biblical author's original composition has survived. In some cases, hundreds of years separate a writer's original work from the extant manuscript copies. The great chronological gap between a given book's date of composition and the oldest version we have of it is troubling - because it is precisely during a document's earliest stages of transmission, before it acquires the status of recognized Scripture, that a text is most fluid, subject to editorial additions, deletions, and other changes.

Ideally, one might think that once a particular book had been completed, a single master copy would be made and that all subsequent copies would faithfully reproduce it. [Radu's note: This seems to be the basis of the King James only theory - assuming that all other versions changed the "original" KJV] In practice however, it appears that many ancient scribes also acted as editors and commentators, adding explanatory phrases or otherwise modifying the text to reflect the covenant community's ever-changing circumstances. Many editorial changes were minor, mere errors in copying, but others produced notable differences in content.
...
By carefully comparing and analyzing all extant copies and early translations of a particular book, however, taking careful note of their similarities and differences, scholars attempt to determine the text's original wording, an academic discipline known as textual criticism.

In short, each translation is a different attempt to return to what these inspired prophets originally wrote. There are over 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament works, alone, and no two are precisely alike. (I can give you some examples of changes, if you want, but I don't think it's necessary) It is a challenge to return to the original words, but people are doing the best they can. Unfortunately, they're going to disagree.

The King James Version is a wonderful translation. It's the one I use, but it doesn't use the same sources as some other translations. It was translated back in 1611, and many ancient manuscripts have been found, since then, which may lead us back to the original authors' words.

[Alec]

Originally Posted by sonya1530

You are wrong Alec. I did not use the internet to do my research. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I almost didn't even put that in there, b/k I wanted the focus to be on the God's word. I knew that that might be the only thing people focused on. You are pointing to 2 paragraphs and not commenting on the majority of it (scripture), and then telling me that I used the internet. All I've done is encouraged us to go to the scripture for our truth. Any other historical info. that I have included, you can research yourself. Internet, library, books, whatever you choose. My 'theology' is based on the Word of God and I am only encouraging others to rely on that for the MAIN source of truth, and to judge everything else against it.
It seems that the whole point is either being misunderstood or ignored. But I can't do anything about that. I can only try to shed some light about what I have found.
I am not here to stir up trouble with anybody. We do what we want with the info we are given and I have said what I know, the best I can, with the best of intentions.

It is good that you put that information in there about Wescott and Hort because it gives us insight into your research and beliefs. Are you telling me that you learned those supposed facts about Wescott and Hort by reading the Bible only? I doubt it. What are your sources? I'm guessing it wasn't a book. It was probably the internet. If it wasn't, give us the name of the book or article you read.

I looked up one of your examples - John 1:18. The NASB doesn't replace the word Son with the word One.

The word translated "Son" by the KJV and "God" by the NASB is "Theos." That word means deity not Son. The word before it, "monogees" means "only begotten." The NASB translates the phrase as "the only begotten God" while the KJV translates it as "the only begotten Son." Which one do you think is more literal? BTW, neither translation changes the meaning or any doctrine. I'm not slaming the KJV, I'm slamming the KJV-only theory.

Your complaint about "do your best" versus "study" doesn't make any sense to me either. "Do your best" means just that -- your best -- put everything you've got into it. It is still your work. I don't see how "study" shows more diligence than "do your best."

If you are going to develop entire theologies and doctrines based upon one translation's wording versus another translation's wording, then I think you are not doing what is best. It is not a sound study method.

Regarding the Lord's Prayer. Read Matthew 6:9-13 in the NASB. That is the Lord's prayer that we all like to quote. If you read an interlinear Bible, which provides the Greek text with the English right next to it, you'll find that in Matthew, there are a bunch of Greek words translated into the prayer we all know and love. If you look in Luke, you'll find a bunch of words in English that have no Greek counterparts. It is the difference between the manuscripts that were used to translate the KJV versus the manuscripts used to translate the NASB. After the KJV was translated, additional manuscripts were discovered that were older than the manuscripts used by the KJV.

If you want to read why the KJV-only theories are based upon mis-information, read this - http://www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm

You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss commentaries and books outside of the Bible. I agree that the Bible should be our first source, but God gave people the spiritual gifts of teaching and preaching for a reason. If you are going to dismiss them because you only read the Bible, then you are saying that God erred when he gave out those spiritual gifts and that those people are sinning by exercising the spiritual gifts that God gave them. You do have to compare everything they say to Scripture and draw your own conclusions, but to dismiss them because you only read the Bible is not Scriptural.

[Radu]

Alec has a good point. If you consider the Bible sacred and true, then you should want to know all you can about it's context, and how we got the version we have, today. It'll help you better understand and appreciate the scriptures. You don't have to believe scholarly interpretations, necessarily, but you should at least know the history and facts about how it was passed-down. It didn't just come down from heaven, in a bound English copy.

Otherwise, I could print up my own "Radu Version of the Bible", and put whatever I want in it. If my Bible, alone, is the only source you go by then you'd have to believe everything I write. After all, it's the Bible.

[Justawoman]

Originally Posted by Justawoman

I have a feeling this whole topic is going to bounce from this to that. I thought the topic was divorce.

I can't believe I got to quote myself. But I think I was right about this thread.

No offense Sonya but you remind me of my father inlaw. He learns a little and gets very passionate about it. That passion runs over into "everyone should listen to me" mixed with a bit of anger when they don't. You'll turn more interested folks off of the Word than you will on.

Alec is right you need to give us the books, other than the Bible, that you use to study from. That way we will all quit thinking you are strictly using the internet. I honestly think that if you are truly interesting in learning all you can about Biblical history then an email study with Radu could be beneficial for you as well as our Radu.

And no Radu that didn't mean that you need to learn more. But mutual sharing of history and scriptures of the Bible is good for everyone. Then you two can come back here and post what you have discussed. But start a new thread about Biblical history.

[jamesglewisf]

I probably started the whole side-bar issue, but here's the deal -- no more KJV only discussion in the divorce thread. Start a new one and debate it all you want, but this thread has been hijacked long enough.

Frankly, you ought to just stop arguing on the divorce topic. No one is changing anyone's mind.

[Boo~Poo~Be~Do]

Just came upon this thread... very interesting discussion.

Sonya~ I appreciate the study you've done, and have come to the same conclusions in my own personal study.

[pack momma]

Originally Posted by DataJack

How ever I do not think it lays down any laws regarding separation.
:-))

Hey, nice to see you back again,

Actually it does, though it doesn't spell out details.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16 speaking to a wife, says that she should not depart from her husband, BUT if she DOES, she should remain as an unmarried person. and if reconciliation is at all possible is to be preferred for the sake of the children, particularly if one spouse (husband or wife) is an unbeliever he or she could be helped to become one if they remained together.

The caution for one who decides to seperate is, is it for the right reason, or to cause the other to "commit adultry" thus freeing them in the sight of God.

Malachi 2: 15, 16 where it mentions that God hates a divorcing, also states that one mate must not deal treacheroulsy ( or faithlessly, RS) with the other.

[Sin Eater]

Originally Posted by deb

Hi,
I am married and have been for 8 years now (hopefully will be for many years to come) and come from a background where my parents and grandparents stayed married. I have always just assumed that the Bible tells us that whilst divorce is allowed in certain circumstances, re-marriage is not. Having this opinion in todays world doesn't make me popular (particularly as my husband's parents divorced about 20 years ago and his mum has re-married). Am I wrong to think this? What does the Bible have to say on these issues?
Deb