Discussion:
King James Study Bible?
(too old to reply)
Carl
2007-09-21 04:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Re: King James Study Bible?
Hi all,
I'm a fairly new Christian. I don't yet belong to a denomination, but
visit Baptist, Nazarene, and Assembly of God churches. I would like
to understand the Bible. I love the language of the King James
version, but find it harder to understand. Do you have any
recommendations for a good study Bible? The two I see most often for
King James are Nelson and Zondervan; any pros and cons between those
two?
Thanks so much!
Tom
Hello Tom,
The King James Bible was translated back in the 17th century. Since
that time, more Bible manuscripts have been discovered, such as the
Dead Sea Scrolls, that allows Bible translators to be more accurate.
Since we are discussing the word of God, accuracy would be paramount,
would it not.
Although most Bibles today get across God's main messages, such as God
sent Jesus as our savior, etc, some Bibles are closer to the original
writings than others. Here is one brief example.
God's name if found in the original OT writings thousands of times.
(nearly 7000) Yet very few Bibles put that name in their translations.
Yet God clearly gave Himself a personal name. So who are they to take
out the personal name that God put in, and replace it with only the
title "Lord" or "God"? The New World Translation Bible restores the
divine name in all of its occurrences. Thus if you want Bible
accuracy, you can find that Bible online by going to the web page
below.
The New World Translation BASTARDIZES the Bible by STUFFING the word
"Jehovah" into the New Testament when NO PLACE IN THE
ORIGINAL-LANGUAGE TEXTS PUTS IT THERE.
Also keep in mind that not one of the members of the NWT translation
committee were knowledgable in any Biblical languages. The following are a
couple of brief articles showing why the New World Translation is a poor
translation rife with error and intentional mistranslation.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/

---

THE WORLDS MOST DANGEROUS BOOK!!

Would you place you trust in a surgeon who was about to perform a major
operation on you, if he refused to give you his name or credentials? OR....

Would you place your faith in an attorney, who was defending you against
false accusations of felony charges, if he also refused to give you his name
or credentials?

We can see how important it is that we rely on the names and credentials
of those who serve us in the important aspects of our life. As in the case
of the lawyer, it is essential to know these things, for without knowledge,
we would have no assurance that he would truly and honestly represent you.
It
is therefore of the utmost importance to know the men, the credentials and
the qualifications of those who we entrust our spiritual lives!!

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed the public at this
most
crucial point, as they refuse to give their followers the names and
credentials of the Translation Committee of their Bible, The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures (see pg. 258 of Jehovah's Witnesses in
the
Divine Purpose). This is more important than the Watchtower Society will
admit since the New World Translation Committee has deceived many in their
translation of the Bible in the following ways:

1. They have invented non-existent rules of Greek grammar and then
proceeded to follow these rules only when necessary to support their
peculiar
theology.

A clear example of this is John 1:1, where the Translation Committee has
rendered the Greek "and the Word was a god". We cite the appendix of another
Watchtower publication (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures, page 1158), for their footnote concerning John 1:1: "The reason
for their rendering the Greek word Divine and not God is that it is the
Greek
noun Theos without the definite article..." May we call the Watchtower
Society's attention to verses 6, 12 and 13 (also found in the first chapter
of the Gospel of John). Here the Greek noun Theos appears without the
definite article (as in John 1:1) and yet the Translating Committee has
translated each verse as (Jehovah) God.

Another example of non-existent rules followed only when needed to
support
their theology is found in the forward of the afore mentioned Kingdom
Interlinear Translation (pg. 18). Here we are taught how to restore the
Divine name. We are instructed that we can render the Greek words "Kyrios"
(Lord) and "Theos" (God) into Divine name by determining if the Christian
(Greek) writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). If
so, we can render "Kyrios" (Lord) and "Theos" (God) as Jehovah God. Once
again, the Watchtower "rule" is avoided by the Translation Committee as they
translate Philippians 2:11. The Apostle Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23 as he
states that "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God
(Kyrios) to the glory of God the Father.

2. The Translation Committee has made up a Greek tense that is
non-existent.

We cite the 1950 edition of their "New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures" rendering of John 8:58 where they have translated "ego
eimi" as "I have been" and state that it is "properly rendered in the
perfect indefinite tense" in the Greek language. There is NO "perfect
indefinite sense" in any language! After the Watchtower Society was informed
of this fact, they made the change to the "perfect tense indicative" but as
the Greek student knows, it is present tense and is correctly translated "I
AM" (see Exodus 3:14).

3. They have added words to Scripture which changes the meaning of the
texts to agree with their theology. Notice the Watchtower's rendering of
Colossians 1:16,17, where the word "other" has been added four times to the
text, completely changing its meaning. When Paul wrote those passages that
the Son created all things, it is obvious that the Son was not himself
created. The Watchtower, however, believes that the Son is also a created
being and has therefore added "other" - not found in the Greek Biblical text
at all - to make it appear that the Son is also a creature. As mentioned
before, the Translation Committee has added the word "a" to John 1:1 to make
the Son a creature rather than God Himself. Take note also of the same
deceitfulness displayed in Philippians 2:9 where the word "other" is again
added, when it is not found or even suggested in the original Greek.

4. The men who comprised the Translation Committee had no adequate
schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators. The
self-appointed "scholars" who made up this Translation Committee were: N.H.
Knorr, F.W. Franz, A.D. Schroeder, G.D. Gangas and M. Henschel. Aside from
the current President Franz, none of the Translation Committee members knew
Biblical Greek or Hebrew and Franz's ability is open to serious question.
This came out in the Scottish Court Sessions in November, 1954 (just four
years after the release of the Watchtower Scriptures). The following
exchange of question and answers between the attorney and Franz is taken
from
the trial transcript:


Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
A. Yes....
Q. So that you have substantial linguistic apparatus at your
command?
A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.
Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew,
Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
A. Yes.....(Pursuer's Proof, pg. 7)
Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
A. I do not speak Hebrew.
Q. You do not?
A. No
Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
A. Which?
Q. That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis.
A. You mean here?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I wouldn't attempt to do that. (Pursuer's Proof, pgs.
102,103).


What Franz failed to do was a simple exercise which an average first or
second year Hebrew student in any seminary would have no difficulty (see
further, "We left Jehovah's Witnesses - A non-Prophet Organization" - Edmond
C. Gruss, pg. 59-101). It is also interesting to note that no Greek scholar
with any credentials will endorse the New World Translation. Bill
Centnar,in
1954 (while still a Jehovah's Witness working at Bethel), was assigned to
interview a well known Bible translator, Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, asking him
for his evaluation and recommendation of the New World Translation of the
Hebrew Scriptures. Dr. Goodspeed replied: "No, I'm afraid that I could not
do that. The grammar is regrettable...".
We agree with Dr. Goodspeed and go a step further and state that the
theology brought forth in this translation is a fatal distortion of Biblical
truth. We ask you not to put your trust in such a bias translation of Holy
Scripture or in the Society that has deceived many in the writing of it; we
ask that your faith and trust be placed in the Lord Jesus Christ who said
that unless you believe that HE IS the Eternal God (Ego Eimi - "I AM"), you
will die in your sins (John 8:24). It is because of the danger of the
reversion of the New World Translation of Holy Scriptures that this warning
has been written. Our concern is for you to come to know the TRUE LORD Jesus
Christ...

Let us help you discover more...

PERSONAL FREEDOM OUTREACH MIDWEST
P.O. Box 26062
Saint Louis, Missouri 63136
(314) 388-2648 (voice phone)

---

"The New World Translation On Trial"
by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

*The New World Translation (NWT)[1] is the official translation
of the Bible published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
and used by all Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). It has often been
criticized for its biased renderings of crucial texts traditionally
used by Christians to support the deity of Christ. Although study
of such isolated mistranslations in the NWT is valuable, it can
give the mistaken impression that the NWT is an otherwise
acceptable translation with only a handful of verses in dispute.
This is not the case, however.*

As I explained in Part One, the purpose of this four-part
series is to show that the JWs _systematically_ distort the Bible
to make it fit their preconceived beliefs.[2] In the present
article I will argue that the NWT itself reflects this systematic
distortion in a vast number of texts relating to practically
every area of biblical doctrine.

Space does not permit a discussion of who the translators
were, what scholarly training they brought to their work, or what
opinions non-JW scholars have expressed about the NWT. Another
restriction for the sake of space is that the scope of this
article will be confined to the New Testament, or "Christian
Greek Scriptures," as JWs call it.

I should also clarify at the outset what it means to charge a
translation with doctrinal bias. While _all_ translations reflect
their translator's doctrinal convictions to a certain extent,
_some_ translations are extremely biased to the point of severely
distorting the meaning of the Bible. And so, though it is true
that all translations reflect some biases, these are in most
cases inconsequential compared to the bias of the NWT.

In this article there will be no extended discussion of
individual texts. Instead, brief comments will be made concerning
a large number of biblical passages. In most cases the reader can
verify what is said by simply consulting the JWs' own _Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (KIT)._ The _KIT_
prints the 1984 edition of the NWT New Testament on the right
side of the page. On the left side is the Westcott-Hort Greek
text of 1881 with the Society's own 1969 word-for-word
interlinear translation printed underneath the Greek words.[3]
The editors of the _KIT_ explain the purpose of the volume: "The
word-for-word interlinear translation and the _New World
Translation_ are arranged in parallel on the page, so that
comparisons can be made between the two readings. Thus, the
accuracy of any modern translation can be determined."[4]

There are several types of mistranslations in the NWT. This
article will draw attention only to some of the most common and
unfortunate.


*ADDING WORDS*

In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in
the NWT to make it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul
is thus made to say that "all [other] things" were created in and
for Christ, as if Christ were one of the created things. It is,
of course, legitimate for translators to add the word "other"
where this does not change the meaning but simply makes for
smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4). In Colossians
1:16-20, however, adding "other" substantially changes the
meaning.

What is not so often recognized is that the NWT does this
same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Romans
8:32; Phil. 2:9). In Romans 8:32 ("....will he not also with him
[Jesus] kindly give us all other things?"), the word "other" is
not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated
practice.[5] In each case, the intent is apparently to undermine
the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

There are several other texts where the NWT adds words
without brackets which change the texts' meaning. Some of these
have real doctrinal significance. In Romans 8:28 "all things" is
changed to "all his works." This implies that God does not work
"all things" together for good to those who love God, but only
those things which He Himself does, over which He therefore has
control. This allows for their belief that God does _not_ have
control over all things.

In Philippians 1:23-24 (NWT) several words are added without
brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter
the structure and thereby the meaning of the text. The passage
reads in the NWT (with the added words italicized), "I am under
pressure from _these_ two things; _but what_ I do desire is the
releasing and the being with Christ, for this, _to be sure,_ is
far better." There are other errors as well, but the additions
indicated here clearly change the meaning. JWs translate it this
way in order to avoid the text's implication that at death Paul
would be with Christ. Such an implication would contradict their
belief that death involves the annihilation of the soul.

Some of the additions in brackets with the NWT so clearly
change the meaning that it is a wonder that more JWs do not
question them. In 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the expression "gift of
the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[gift
of the] spirit." The result is that Paul's contrast between his
own personal "spirit" and his "mind" is removed, which again
serves the JW doctrine that the spirit is not a distinct entity
which survives death. To assure that this contrast is missed, the
word "my" is also added in brackets before "mind" twice in verse
15. Thus the simple contrast between "the spirit" and "the mind"
is changed to "the [gift of the] spirit" and "[my] mind."


*OMITTING WORDS*

The NWT also omits key words on occasion, when retaining them
in the text would seem to contradict JW doctrine. The most
glaring example is Romans 8:1, "Therefore those in union with
Christ Jesus have no condemnation," which omits the word "now."
This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that JWs do not
believe anyone can claim to be free of condemnation _now._

Also notable is the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:19,
"because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here
the little word "the" is omitted before "fullness." This is
significant, because in the NWT rendering "all fullness" is
ambiguous, whereas "all _the_ fullness" clearly refers to the
"fullness" of God's own being (cf. Col. 2:9).

John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads,
"If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in
the _KIT_, however, has "me" after "ask." It therefore should be
translated, "If you ask _me_ anything in my name, I will do it."
It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word,
but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern
editions of the Greek New Testament (including those used by the
JWs in producing the NWT) include it. At the very least, the NWT
ought to have mentioned this reading in a note.


*CHANGING WORDS*

The NWT is further guilty of mistranslating or paraphrasing
words in a way which not only does a disservice to the text but
betrays its prevailing doctrinal bias as well. It does this with
words as small as prepositions.

Of course, it is possible to make too much of prepositions.
Words like "in," "of," "into," and "with" really do not in and of
themselves have doctrinal significance. Only as these words are
attached to other words do they take on significance. It is also
important to recognize that a preposition can have different
meanings in different contexts. Yet -- though this is true --
prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings and
cannot be translated in whatever manner one chooses.

In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple
preposition "in" (Greek, _en_) with unnecessary variations which
often obscure or alter the meaning of the passage. This is
illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT reads in part, "And we
are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus
Christ." Reading this translation, one would never suspect that
_in union with_ and _by means of_ translate the same simple Greek
preposition. There is no sound reason for this variation. "And we
are _in union with_ the true one, _in union with_ his Son Jesus
Christ," would have brought out John's point that union with
Christ _is_ union with God.

Again, in Colossians 2:6-12 the preposition "in" is
translated by the NWT using unnecessary variations. The Greek
phrase _en auto_ ("in him") is translated "in union with him" (v.
6b), "in him" (vv. 7a,9), and "by means of him" (v. 10). _En ho_
("in whom") is translated "by relationship with him" (vv.
11a,12a). These variations of "in" serve no useful purpose,
undermine the unity of the passage, and obscure the point of the
author which is that the Christian life consists of a
supernatural relationship with Christ through faith.

There are many other passages where "in" is paraphrased in
the NWT to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For
example, in Matthew 5:19 "in" is translated "in relation to."
This is done to avoid the passage's teaching that some who
disobey the Law's commandments and teach others to do so will
nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven." (JWs believe
the Kingdom will be restricted to 144,000 specially chosen and
sanctified believers).

Another kind of mistranslation involves the word "believe." One
of the most offensive teachings of evangelical Christianity to the
JWs (and to many others as well) is that God reckons the sinner
righteous on the basis of simple faith, or believing, in Christ. Of
course, where "faith" or "belief" is reduced to mental assent to a
doctrine, this is rightly rejected. But biblical justification is
based on faith in _Christ,_ not faith in a doctrine. Nonetheless,
even when this teaching is properly defined it is offensive to the
JWs, as is evidenced by their attempt to obscure this truth in the
NWT.

Most notable in this regard is the NWT rendering of the Greek
word for "believe" (_pisteuo_) as "exercise faith" instead of
"believe." As others have noted, to "exercise faith" implies more
than to believe; it implies doing works on the basis of one's
belief. The NWT almost always renders _pisteuo_ as "exercise faith"
when it concerns God's free pardon and justification of those who
believe in Christ (e.g., John 1:12; 3:16-18 [but note v. 15]; Rom.
4:3; Gal. 3:22).

It was noted earlier that in 1 Corinthians 14:12-16 the phrase
"gift of the" is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to
"[gift of the] spirit." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases
the simple word "spirit" -- especially when referring to the
immaterial aspect of human nature -- in order to avoid the
implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the
body. For instance, in Hebrews 12:9 "the Father of spirits" becomes
"the Father of our spiritual life." In Galatians 6:18 "your spirit"
is paraphrased "the spirit YOU show."

Similar rewordings are introduced in passages where the simple
translation "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is
a person, contrary to their doctrine that "holy spirit" is God's
"active force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not
having the Spirit" is rendered "not having spirituality" (Jude 19).

Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we
know our union with God is secure "owing to the _spirit_ which he
gave us" (3:24). The next sentence (4:1) in the NWT reads, "Beloved
ones, believe not every _inspired expression,_ but test the
_inspired expressions_ to see whether they originate with God..."
(4:1a; emphases added). One would never suspect from this rendering
that "inspired expression" translates the same Greek word
(_pneuma_) as was translated "spirit" in 3:24 (see also 4:2,3,6).
John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence in us
gives us assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every
"spirit" that claims to be from God, but test them by the teachings
which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets have
gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT obscures this point of
God's Word in order to avoid its implication that His "Spirit" is
a person rather than a force (just as the demonic "spirits" are
personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs recognize).

The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT
reads, "However, the _inspired utterance_ says...." A
straightforward "the spirit says" would too obviously imply the
personality of the "spirit."

Finally, the way in which the NWT most systematically distorts
the teaching of Scripture is in its handling of the names and
titles used for God. Two points must be made here.

First and most obvious is the appearance of "Jehovah" over 200
times in the NWT New Testament where the Greek text has _kurios_
("Lord"). Other writers have exposed the scholarly errors
involved;[6] I will not repeat their work here. Instead I wish to
point out two ways in which this distorts the teaching of the New
Testament.

The New Testament follows the practice of the Septuagint (the
Greek translation of the Old Testament used by most Greek-speaking
Jews in the first century) in substituting the word "Lord" (and
occasionally "God") for the divine name "Yahweh" (or "Jehovah"). By
so doing, the New Testament makes it clear that the use of
"Jehovah" is _not_ necessary for Christians, contrary to the JWs'
claim.

Moreover, the substitution of "Jehovah" for "Lord" often
obscures the meaning of passages relating to Jesus Christ. A good
example is Romans 10:9-13, where Christ is called "Lord" (_kurios_)
three times, concluding with verse 13, a quote from the Septuagint
where the "Lord" is Jehovah. The NWT, by rendering _kurios_ in
verse 13 as "Jehovah" but as "Lord" in verses 9 and 12, has
obscured the fact that in this passage Jesus is being identified as
Jehovah by the use of the title "Lord."

The second way the NWT has systematically abused the divine
names or titles is in its handling of texts in which Jesus is
called God. There are nine texts where Jesus is definitely called
God (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1,18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8;
2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20; possibly also Acts 20:28).[7] Of these,
four are translated so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom.
9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Two are rendered so that he
is "a god" or "god" (John 1:1,18). The remaining three texts (Isa.
9:6; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20) are interpreted so that either Jesus
is not called God at all or he is called God only in some lesser
sense. In short, wherever possible, the NWT has translated texts
which in their natural reading plainly call Jesus God in such a way
that they no longer make that identification.

Only a small sampling of doctrinally-motivated mistranslations
in the NWT have been documented here. We have seen words added,
words omitted, and words and phrases paraphrased improperly with a
view toward transmuting the Bible into JW doctrine. We have seen
that these mistranslations conveniently support the distinctive JW
understanding of the name "Jehovah" and their denials of Christ's
deity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the separableness of the
human spirit from the body, spiritual life after the death of the
body for Christians, God's absolute sovereign control over the
world, the unity of God's people, and justification by faith. Were
we to extend the study, we would see that every distinctive of the
JWs has strategically been insinuated into the text of the NWT in
a way that to the non-JW clearly shows doctrinal bias.

One possible criticism of this survey would be that it does not
consider the arguments JWs would advance in defense of their
controversial renderings in the NWT. In reply I must point out that
to address such arguments would necessarily mean limiting the
examples of mistranslation to just a few. But, it is my experience
and doubtless that of many others that no JW will admit that there
might be so much as _one_ doctrinally-slanted verse in the NWT. To
defend such a position, however, they must now satisfactorily
explain _all_ of the examples given here. In any case, the more
in-depth treatment a specific text is given (including evaluation
of arguments in its favor), the more evidence piles up that the JW
renderings are wrong and biased.

In Part Three of this series, a specific passage of the Bible
_will_ be examined in-depth as a case in point. I shall argue that
the methods and presuppositions of biblical interpretation used by
the JWs are seriously flawed and lead them into error.


*NOTES*

1 The New World Translation of the "Christian Greek Scriptures"
was first published in 1950, with the complete Bible appearing
in 1961. All citations from the NWT are from the _New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures: With References_ (Brooklyn:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984), hereafter cited as
_NWT_ (1984).
2 "Watchtower Authority and the Bible," CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL
11 (Fall 1988):19-21.
3 "By Way of Explanation," in _The Kingdom Interlinear Translation
of the Greek Scriptures,_ rev. ed. (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society, 1985), 5.
4 _Ibid._
5 _NWT_ (1984), 7.
6 _See_ Robert H. Countess, _The Jehovah's Witnesses' New
Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of
the Christian Greek Scriptures_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
& Reformed Publishing Co., 1982), 19-40, and especially Doug
Mason, _JEHOVAH in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World
Translation_ (n.p.: Doug Mason, 1987; available from Bethel
Ministries, CP-258, Manhattan Beach, CA 92667).
7 On John 1:1 and 20:28, see my _Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus
Christ, and the Gospel of John_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1989). On Romans 9:5, see Bruce M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of
Rom. 9:5," in _Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour
of Charles Francis Digby Moule,_ ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen
S. Smalley (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
1973), 95-112.
Carl
2007-09-23 01:25:36 UTC
Permalink
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
Actually since you don't offer anything of a legitimate substantive nature
in your claims of corrupt texts, it's not worth my time and energy bothering
with something that's been so thoroughly refuted by others. For example,
James White addressed the claims you have made in his book "The King James
Only Controversy". And there are other authors who have researched this
thoroughly. I can offer you more literature to read for yourself.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Pastor Dave
2007-09-23 19:02:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:25:36 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
Actually since you don't offer anything of a legitimate substantive nature
in your claims of corrupt texts,
Right. Now claim I didn't offer anything.

Fact: I did and you couldn't dispute it,
or you would have.
Post by Carl
it's not worth my time and energy bothering
But it's worth your time to keep trying to argue now?

You're full of crap and we both know it and you just
proved it.
--
To email me, just remove the underscores.

A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
Vernono O
2007-09-23 01:44:50 UTC
Permalink
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a website?
If so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted, would you
please post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
The church of the internet. Imaginary
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl
2007-09-23 01:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a website?
If so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted, would you
please post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
The church of the internet. Imaginary
The same church in which Steve Winter and BR Collins preach? :-)

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Vernono O
2007-09-23 02:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by Vernono O
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a
website? If so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted,
would you please post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
The church of the internet. Imaginary
The same church in which Steve Winter and BR Collins preach? :-)
It's sad.

BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.

I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
Post by Carl
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Bible Bob
2007-09-23 05:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
Post by Carl
Post by Vernono O
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a
website? If so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted,
would you please post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
The church of the internet. Imaginary
The same church in which Steve Winter and BR Collins preach? :-)
It's sad.
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
Post by Carl
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Vernon,

Are you aware of this link?

http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/

You are right, God made it real easy to get saved. He had to, if you
consider how far down into the gutter man may fall before he cries for
help. I haven't read it, but I imagine that the JW Bible has enough
in it for a person to be saved.

BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
Sam Taylor
2007-09-23 06:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
The Bolinger bible (companion Bible) is one of the greatest study
bibles out.
not as doctrinly biased as Schofield, Thompson or Dakes Bibles
To see the variations of source scriptures
let Me recomend the Newberry study bible.
it shows what most early source manuscripts actually say, and how they
are.
many paralel New testaments are also biased by Doctrins
the 11 translation new testament is a GREAT source
for comparison
I like the Dugan anylitical topical referencrce Bible in it's form and
fullness without bias
Bollinger has a lot of very interesting thoughts, like the 5 Crosses.
I like the uncial greek compilation of the
concordant greek text, and the concordant Study bible
c***@flapper.com
2007-09-23 13:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
The Bolinger bible (companion Bible) is one of the greatest study
bibles out.
not as doctrinly biased as Schofield, Thompson or Dakes Bibles
To see the variations of source scriptures
let Me recomend the Newberry study bible.
it shows what most early source manuscripts actually say, and how they
are.
many paralel New testaments are also biased by Doctrins
I don't think so. How do you "bias by doctrines" (your spelling
corrected) by lining up 3, 4, or 5 translations side-by-side.

Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The so-called
"unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that agree with YOUR
bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.

I am biased. I admit it. I want to know EXACTLY what the Bible says
IN THE TEXT, and how the original writer intended that to be
understood. I believe that is a GOOD bias.
Post by Sam Taylor
the 11 translation new testament is a GREAT source
for comparison
I like the Dugan anylitical topical referencrce Bible in it's form and
fullness without bias
Bollinger has a lot of very interesting thoughts, like the 5 Crosses.
I like the uncial greek compilation of the
concordant greek text, and the concordant Study bible
The concordant New Testament is a HORRENDOUS "translation" based on
the idea that any given word has one and only one meaning.
\
I am assuming you mean the concordant literal new testament with the
keyword concordance, published by concordant publishing concern,
Canyon Counter, CA.

in Jesus Christ.
Carl
2007-09-23 21:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The so-called
"unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that agree with YOUR
bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV Parallel
Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know if it is still in
print or not nor how easy it is to find. My hardback copy was printed in
1994.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
c***@flapper.com
2007-09-24 13:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The so-called
"unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that agree with YOUR
bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV Parallel
Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know if it is still in
print or not nor how easy it is to find. My hardback copy was printed in
1994.
I don't remember. But I might "check one out," since I am married to
fa family of librarians! :-)

In the Name of Jesus,
Checker
l***@adelphia.net
2007-09-24 23:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The so-called
"unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that agree with YOUR
bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV Parallel
Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know if it is still in
print or not nor how easy it is to find. My hardback copy was printed in
1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,

For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF

http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489

May God bless you,
Larry
::: good news :::
2007-09-24 23:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,

Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!

I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.

[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]

God bless you,

::: vera :::
l***@adelphia.net
2007-09-25 22:29:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,

You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.

May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
l***@adelphia.net
2007-09-27 00:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
::: good news :::
2007-09-27 00:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider
only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
No problem, Larry. I cannot count all my typos, and not to speak of all
the other idiomatic mistakes I still make.

God bless you,

::: vera :::
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-27 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:07:07 -0400, ***@adelphia.net wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!

I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)

As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.

In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).

Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Robibnikoff
2007-09-27 13:19:42 UTC
Permalink
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote
snip9
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
Oh bullshit.

Narcissists have a grandiose sense of self-importance and think their ideas
constitute the truth. If you don't agree, you're generally cut out of their
world. They think they're special and they insist on excessive admiration.
Typically they're arrogant, think everyone envies them, and feel entitled to
take whatever they want, no matter what the cost to others. Above all, they
seek to control what people think of them, which generally involves finding
someone else to blame for their own misdeeds. When criticized, they often
react with rage and disdain.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
N***@no.spam
2007-09-27 15:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
How much does everyone wanna bet that next he'll claim 'his computer
crashed and he lost all his data?
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-27 22:02:27 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:10:18 -0400, ***@no.spam wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
How much does everyone wanna bet
How could that POSSIBLY matter

to you?


that next he'll claim 'his computer
Post by N***@no.spam
crashed and he lost all his data?
Robibnikoff
2007-09-28 12:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
How much does everyone wanna bet
How could that POSSIBLY matter
to you?
Someone forcing you to read and respond to every one of her posts?

Or is it just your complete lack of self-control?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
walksalone
2007-09-27 20:27:16 UTC
Permalink
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> news:***@4ax.com in a state of confusion
thought reality is how he defines it, and so continued to suck up to
Larry, never realizing, it's not necessary.



From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,a
lt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: King James Study Bible?
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:09:49 -0700
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <fd4fj7$428$***@news.utelfla.com> <46f5c50a$0$9149
$***@news.ThunderNews.com> <fd4gl0$4qr$***@news.utelfla.com> <46f5c9e9
$0$9115$***@news.ThunderNews.com>
<***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com> <fd6kcb$sh3$1
@news.utelfla.com> <***@4ax.com>
<***@mid.individual.net> <4r2jf3l8c9he0jv6k7h4m1vlok7281a8ad@
4ax.com> <***@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000777-1, 09/26/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 91
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: b781d6eb.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=20OZRBc9CD]mP\CZ7oX>^_F85SKJoGf>T6`l]g=fdgiX?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
snip


sni
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
According to you, but then again, the word of a professional liar has no
value. Not to mention, you're posting history says you doing anything
but winding down your time. And archiving, you don't know how.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
But proofreading can catch that, and Larry did case at all on his own.
Which means you're simply trying to draw attention to yourself. Based on
your claims of being a professional wordsmith™, as well as a self-
proclaimed grammarian™ of renown. Which of course, you are not. By the
way, have you ever heard of staying on topic?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
They are processors, binary processors.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Something you insist including with regularity and every post & you
forward to the chagrin of real xians. But enough about you, which of
course was the sole purpose of this exercise in futility.

which won't be this time Jonny, the one who must bask in the reflected
glory of others because he has none of his own? It's pretty much your
life history, a role you play well.

walksalone who just naturally doubts johnnie knows any actual computer
scientist, or at least any that would actually admit knowing him. Of
course, given his willingness to find definitions that meet his criteria,
such as being an ordained anything [being an ordained Sunday school
teacher still makes me grin], scholar, wordsmith, international author of
renown, all self-proclaimed and with no supporting evidence. Of course,
when you're at the bottom of the cesspool, most people try to head for
the light. It's just possible that johnnie prefers to burrow back into
the darkness.

Now, from the theater of St. John, the liar.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
John, the default of Agent, my newsreader for umpteen years, is to
DOUBLE left click. Left click -twice- on the URL. If that does not
Thanks, Falcon. Though I would debate that this is the "default". I
keep hearing it sets up that way, but in my 3 years with Agent, and
the hundred times I've installed/reinstalled it (I somehow seem to
crash my system about every other month) it's NEVER "defaulted" to a
double click.

At any rate, I've now set it to that, and it works! I'm not even
saying I'm going to use it. I just like to learn new stuff.

"Many donkeys!"

In Christ,

John W
l***@adelphia.net
2007-09-27 22:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,

Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
Vernono O
2007-09-28 00:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
Yes, for sure, old saying.
Garbage in, garbage out.
BUT I have seen computers "outsmart" "Put to knees" owners and operators.
BUT Computers are not smart.
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-28 01:36:58 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:19:05 -0400, ***@adelphia.net wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
Yep! As I said, my brother-in-law, who is now retired, but WAS a
high-level computer engineer for DOD, said that computers break down
in 3 places: design, manufacture, or end user.

The best design can be ruined by poor manufacturing. But the
world's best computer is at the total mercy of an inept end user
(that's you and me/ not that I meant we're "inept". I'm saying the guy
who sits at the keyboard and mouse is the biggest offender)

Although-- a funny story for you. I just got my son to help me build
my "power machine." I finally scrimped and scraped and built my duo
core IBM (first IBM I've ever owned). It's a beautiful machine, and
I'm proud to say I had NO help building it and it runs beautifully!
250 Gb hdd, 200 Gb backup external firewire hdd, 512 Gb 64 bit
video, CD burner, 2 Gb RAM. etc.
But it continues to crash. I finally asked my engineer buddy (he is
qualified to build computers from the logic level (the actual
component design). Why does my computer keep crashing?
He knows me well enough to know I can design and build a kick-butt
machine. He said, "Well, let's do the basics: How much do you use it?"
I said, "somewhere around-- let's call it 12-14 hours a day, 7 days
a week."
My engineer buddy, Bruce said, "that is precisely the problem! NO
computer can be run virtually around the clock.
You gotta let it REST!"

God bless!

john w
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-28 03:44:37 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:19:05 -0400, ***@adelphia.net wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!

For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).

I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.

Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.

john w
N***@no.spam
2007-09-28 15:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Robibnikoff
2007-09-28 16:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
N***@no.spam
2007-09-28 18:29:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
O Lord, it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way.............!!!!!!!




Indeed, his 'humility' is sickening, isn't it? !! LOL!
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-29 03:04:08 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<***@broomstick.com> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!

Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!

GOD! You're stupid!
ujb
2007-09-29 11:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
resume of a retarded nambie pambie...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
GOD! You're stupid!
you like being wrong don't u!
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-29 23:26:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:45:50 -0400, ujb <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by ujb
--
This article is
NOT
Post by ujb
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
ujb
2007-09-29 23:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by ujb
--
This article is
NOT
don't tell poor stupid, he'll sue, or he might want me to be
Sue!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by ujb
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
N***@no.spam
2007-09-30 15:01:37 UTC
Permalink
don't tell poor stupid, he'll sue, or he might want me to be=20
Sue!
Well, I saw a post awhile back where Fishbait said someone by the name
of 'Big Bertha' wanted johnnie for his 'new punk'-- I wonder if
they've met yet? It could be love at first bite - er, s'cuse me- I
meant SIGHT!!!!! LOL! :o)
John Henry
2007-09-29 13:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
GOD! You're stupid!
You have just called God stupid, and Jesus is God, remember? (Ref: Isa.
9:6; John 1:1 He will be called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting
Father." "And 'The Word' was God")

Moreover, Jesus said it Himself, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as
you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me"
(Matt. 25:40).

You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling both
God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.

Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
N***@no.spam
2007-09-29 17:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Henry
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
GOD! You're stupid!
You have just called God stupid, and Jesus is God, remember? (Ref: Isa.
9:6; John 1:1 He will be called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting
Father." "And 'The Word' was God")
Moreover, Jesus said it Himself, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as
you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me"
(Matt. 25:40).
You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling both
God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.
Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
But no one can tell johnnie w anything, John H - he's too busy
imagining himself God's gift to society.
Sad, is it not?
John Henry
2007-09-29 23:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by John Henry
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
GOD! You're stupid!
You have just called God stupid, and Jesus is God, remember? (Ref: Isa.
9:6; John 1:1 He will be called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting
Father." "And 'The Word' was God")
Moreover, Jesus said it Himself, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as
you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me"
(Matt. 25:40).
You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling both
God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.
Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
But no one can tell johnnie w anything, John H - he's too busy
imagining himself God's gift to society.
Sad, is it not?
If there is anything here with nearly 100% consensus on, it is that john
w is a sad, sad wretch, but I am being too kind, I'm sure.
N***@no.spam
2007-09-30 14:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Henry
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by John Henry
You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling both
God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.
Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
But no one can tell johnnie w anything, John H - he's too busy
imagining himself God's gift to society.
Sad, is it not?
If there is anything here with nearly 100% consensus on, it is that john
w is a sad, sad wretch, but I am being too kind, I'm sure.
It's about all anyone can do, John H ----- I honestly think he is more
to be pitied than anything else.
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-29 23:29:03 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:40:24 -0400, ***@no.spam wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by John Henry
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
GOD! You're stupid!
You have just called God stupid, and Jesus is God, remember? (Ref: Isa.
9:6; John 1:1 He will be called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting
Father." "And 'The Word' was God")
Moreover, Jesus said it Himself, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as
you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me"
(Matt. 25:40).
You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling both
God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.
Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
But no one can tell johnnie w anything, John H - he's too busy
imagining himself God's gift to society.
Sad, is it not?
REpost the post in which I said I am "God's gift to society", or admit
that you're a liar, and that you're delusional..


"Put up or SHUT up!"

john w
John Henry
2007-09-30 00:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by John Henry
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
GOD! You're stupid!
You have just called God stupid, and Jesus is God, remember? (Ref: Isa.
9:6; John 1:1 He will be called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting
Father." "And 'The Word' was God")
Moreover, Jesus said it Himself, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as
you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me"
(Matt. 25:40).
You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling both
God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.
Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
But no one can tell johnnie w anything, John H - he's too busy
imagining himself God's gift to society.
Sad, is it not?
REpost the post in which I said I am "God's gift to society", or admit
that you're a liar, and that you're delusional..
"Put up or SHUT up!"
Another classic example of your total inability to comprehend even the
simplest of English. Elaine did not claim that you said you are "God's
gift to society." No, she merely stated that you are "too busy
imagining" that you are. Then again, when did you ever rightly
divide...A N Y T H I N G ? [Absolutely *nada* thing in the past
five-years, that's for sure, but keep trying as you are due to hit the
mark anytime now.] :-)
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
john w
Rod
2007-09-30 01:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Henry
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
GOD! You're stupid!
Isa. 9:6; John 1:1 He will be called "The mighty God" and "The
everlasting Father." "And 'The Word' was God")
Moreover, Jesus said it Himself, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch
as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it
to Me" (Matt. 25:40).
You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling
both God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.
Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
But no one can tell johnnie w anything, John H - he's too busy
imagining himself God's gift to society.
Sad, is it not?
REpost the post in which I said I am "God's gift to society", or admit
that you're a liar, and that you're delusional..
"Put up or SHUT up!"
Another classic example of your total inability to comprehend even the
simplest of English. Elaine did not claim that you said you are "God's
gift to society." No, she merely stated that you are "too busy
imagining" that you are. Then again, when did you ever rightly
divide...A N Y T H I N G ? [Absolutely *nada* thing in the past
five-years, that's for sure, but keep trying as you are due to hit the
mark anytime now.] :-)
I'll take that bet if you'll give me some odds....say 1500 to 1 ??


Rod
N***@no.spam
2007-09-30 15:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Henry
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by John Henry
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:17:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
LOL - Oh my, isn't he humble <cough>
smirk. Show me your humility, and I'll show you mine!
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
GOD! You're stupid!
You have just called God stupid, and Jesus is God, remember? (Ref: Isa.
9:6; John 1:1 He will be called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting
Father." "And 'The Word' was God")
Moreover, Jesus said it Himself, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as
you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me"
(Matt. 25:40).
You just called Elaine stupid; therefore, you just finished calling both
God and Jesus Christ stupid, too.
Not too smart, john w, not too smart at all.
But no one can tell johnnie w anything, John H - he's too busy
imagining himself God's gift to society.
Sad, is it not?
REpost the post in which I said I am "God's gift to society", or admit
that you're a liar, and that you're delusional..
"Put up or SHUT up!"
Another classic example of your total inability to comprehend even the
simplest of English. Elaine did not claim that you said you are "God's
gift to society." No, she merely stated that you are "too busy
imagining" that you are. Then again, when did you ever rightly
divide...A N Y T H I N G ? [Absolutely *nada* thing in the past
five-years, that's for sure, but keep trying as you are due to hit the
mark anytime now.] :-)
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
john w
That's our little Derie for ya, Ujie!!
So busy gossiping and imagining all sorts of conspiracies against
him, the poor little fellow can't think straight.
N***@no.spam
2007-09-29 17:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Besides, you haven't YET figured out, witchy, that when I post my
achievements in here, it's a resume!
Yup-- all one sentence of it.....
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-29 03:03:02 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:41:21 -0400, ***@no.spam wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!

How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)

How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?

I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!

"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
Rod
2007-09-29 04:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?
I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!
"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
Whats this do, Johnny boy ?


ld ah cs
mov cs 0e00000008
jmp far 0f0000002f
int 0021h mov dx
poke ax dh


Heres your chance, hero.....
N***@no.spam
2007-09-29 17:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?
I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!
"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
Whats this do, Johnny boy ?
ld ah cs
mov cs 0e00000008
jmp far 0f0000002f
int 0021h mov dx
poke ax dh
Heres your chance, hero.....
LOL!!!!!!! :O)
Rod
2007-09-30 01:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Rod
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?
I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!
"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
Whats this do, Johnny boy ?
ld ah cs
mov cs 0e00000008
jmp far 0f0000002f
int 0021h mov dx
poke ax dh
Heres your chance, hero.....
LOL!!!!!!! :O)
What ??? No answer ??? What happened to all that gas that was
escaping past his lips a few posts ago ???

It suddenly dissipated !

Looks like "shut up" is in control now !

Rod
N***@no.spam
2007-09-30 15:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by Rod
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?
I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!
"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
Whats this do, Johnny boy ?
ld ah cs
mov cs 0e00000008
jmp far 0f0000002f
int 0021h mov dx
poke ax dh
Heres your chance, hero.....
LOL!!!!!!! :O)
What ??? No answer ??? What happened to all that gas that was
escaping past his lips a few posts ago ???
It suddenly dissipated !
Looks like "shut up" is in control now !
Rod
Yup- the ball is obviously in your court now, Rod!! :o)
ujb
2007-09-29 16:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
what do you have to bet with!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
you built, big deal, almost any tard can do the same, you
are proof!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?
I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!
seeing you are known as liar johnnie I'd have to see that...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
so scrambled!
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-29 23:37:18 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:17:12 -0400, ujb <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by ujb
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
what do you have to bet with!
Hey, Stupid!
You terminate questions with question marks. (?)
Not with exclamation points! (!)

If your pidgin English represents your level of education, the Army
is in DEEP u no what.
Post by ujb
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
you built, big deal, almost any tard can do the same, you
are proof!
Actually, Stupid, building a high-end computer from scratch is
proof I'm NOT a 'tard! But of course, you're too stupid to understand
that!

And I don't know anybody who isn't an engineer who can build a
computer from parts. In my entire building (some 100 residents), I
understand there are only TWO of us who can!

You are UNBELIEVABLY stupid, you know?

That and criminally insane!
Post by ujb
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?
I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!
seeing you are known as liar johnnie I'd have to see that...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
so scrambled!
ujb
2007-09-30 00:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by ujb
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
what do you have to bet with!
Hey, Stupid!
You terminate questions with question marks. (?)
Not with exclamation points! (!)
If your pidgin English represents your level of education, the Army
is in DEEP u no what.
pidgin english is reserved for tards
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by ujb
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
you built, big deal, almost any tard can do the same, you
are proof!
Actually, Stupid, building a high-end computer from scratch is
proof I'm NOT a 'tard! But of course, you're too stupid to understand
that!
we only have the word of a known liar, which is worth zero...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And I don't know anybody who isn't an engineer who can build a
computer from parts.
you are so retarded you wouldn't!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
In my entire building (some 100 retards), I
understand there are only TWO of us who can!
and one ain't you!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You are UNBELIEVABLY stupid, you know?
yes I nos
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
That and criminally insane!
that too, but not scrambled like u...
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
walksalone
2007-09-29 16:51:17 UTC
Permalink
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> news:k0grf3di5gfhlent5jfnsino3jlbirsr3v@
4ax.com decided to impress upon the audience that he, and he alone is
allowed to be off-topic. When so ever he should so choose, but don't you
make that mistake.

From: john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.bible,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt
.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: King James Study Bible?
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:03:02 -0700
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com> <fd6kcb$sh3$1
@news.utelfla.com> <***@4ax.com>
<***@mid.individual.net> <4r2jf3l8c9he0jv6k7h4m1vlok7281a8ad@
4ax.com> <***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000777-2, 09/28/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 28
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcb9c006.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=;22Lda6IaF1]3h5YG?lI_5F85SKJoGf>4Y5SNJ3L=6F;m=:Gl@
1G7n8F85SKJoGf>4JMM\>_UBBo:8[boFSBSfP4UjAPX88O459
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by N***@no.spam
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one)
\\
\\
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
I'm betting, 'lainie, my dear, that my knowledge of computers runs
circles around yours!
Just because you can spell a word, does not mean, you know what it is. Nor
does it mean that anybody should take you at your word when you attempt to
discuss that particular subject. A point well understood on USENET, where
you are concerned.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
How many computers have you built from scratch? (from the different
parts?)
There is a difference between building a computer from scratch, and
building one from different parts. A difference that should not have to be
pointed out. One is building, one is assembling.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
How long would it take you to assemble a complete, working PC (let's
call it a duo core), from the parts?
Myself, about 30 minutes, to install an OS on it after I had it running,
that's a variable. In no case, more than an hour and a half. To fine-tune
it to my preferences, about four more days.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I did it in about 2 1/2 hours!
My neighbor's kid does it in 20 minutes, but then he knows what he's doing.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
"Put up or shut up", to quote YOU!
You have never put up, you have only claimed to have accomplished these
things. Nobody has seen an invoice from you presented to somebody as a
bill for building them a computer, or repairing one come to that. Claims,
yes, but you make many claims the majority of which are known to be false.
What's one more. If your mythology is correct, you're already going to
hell, all liars get to go to hell.

which wannabe this time johnnie, the one who's free to make a claim and
does not have to provide evidence to back it up. Yet he is in a position
to demand anybody else pony up evidence that he cannot? You can play a
role, but you cannot enforce it.

walksalone who recalls more than once people preferred johnnie not enter a
conversation eating with computers because they wanted, accurate
information to start with. If they wanted a self-aggrandizing locale,
smart and intelligent I am post. To start with, it would simply have to
open any post that you make, where you play, the superior inferior.

And for potluck, let's watch johnnie play to the fourth wall.


Yes, quite a few, actually. When I have asked two different pastors
about why I'm seeing so many demons, it was explained, "John you are
special. Like Jesus, like Peter, like Paul, the Holy Spirit is strong
in you. Demons see you and they SHRIEK for mercy."

jw Jul 24 20:58:54 2004
l***@adelphia.net
2007-09-28 23:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)

Larry
john w <johnw@yahoo.com>
2007-09-29 23:38:31 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:27:11 -0400, ***@adelphia.net wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Yeah! And I don't know much about it, either.
And I am betting that-- put in that situation today-- my brain has
slowed down WAY too much for me to do it again!

john w
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Larry
ujb
2007-09-30 00:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Yeah! And I don't know much about it, either.
And I am betting that-- put in that situation today-- my brain has
slowed down WAY too much for me to do it again!
it was them drugs papa porn, the drugs, and being dropped on
your head, and papa porn, them times in the barrel didn't
help either, and my run on lines make you crazy too!
suny
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Rod
2007-09-30 01:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my
provider only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Yeah! And I don't know much about it, either.
And I am betting that-- put in that situation today-- my brain has
slowed down WAY too much for me to do it again!
it was them drugs papa porn, the drugs, and being dropped on your head,
and papa porn, them times in the barrel didn't help either, and my run
on lines make you crazy too!
suny
Hey ! Tell me about his times in the barrel ! That should be good for
a laugh !

Rod
ujb
2007-09-30 01:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL
commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my
provider only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Yeah! And I don't know much about it, either.
And I am betting that-- put in that situation today-- my brain has
slowed down WAY too much for me to do it again!
it was them drugs papa porn, the drugs, and being dropped on your
head, and papa porn, them times in the barrel didn't help either, and
my run on lines make you crazy too!
suny
Hey ! Tell me about his times in the barrel ! That should be good for
a laugh !
that be one of them little things best kept in the family,
if ya know what I mean, right papa porn!!!
Post by Rod
Rod
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Rod
2007-09-30 02:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:04:10 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL
commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my
provider only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Yeah! And I don't know much about it, either.
And I am betting that-- put in that situation today-- my brain has
slowed down WAY too much for me to do it again!
it was them drugs papa porn, the drugs, and being dropped on your
head, and papa porn, them times in the barrel didn't help either, and
my run on lines make you crazy too!
suny
Hey ! Tell me about his times in the barrel ! That should be good
for a laugh !
that be one of them little things best kept in the family, if ya know
what I mean, right papa porn!!!
It sounds pretty strange anyway...
ujb
2007-09-30 02:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Post by Rod
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:04:10 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL
commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I
don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my
provider only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Yeah! And I don't know much about it, either.
And I am betting that-- put in that situation today-- my brain has
slowed down WAY too much for me to do it again!
it was them drugs papa porn, the drugs, and being dropped on your
head, and papa porn, them times in the barrel didn't help either,
and my run on lines make you crazy too!
suny
Hey ! Tell me about his times in the barrel ! That should be good
for a laugh !
that be one of them little things best kept in the family, if ya know
what I mean, right papa porn!!!
It sounds pretty strange anyway...
just cause I no all don't mean i b tellin awl...
--
DISCLAIMER:
This article is
posted under
fair use rules
in accordance
with
Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107,
and is strictly
for the
educational
and informative
purposes. This
material is
distributed
with little or
no profit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Rod
2007-09-30 04:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ujb
Post by Rod
Post by Rod
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:04:10 -0400, "Carl"
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL
commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator.
The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely
commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended)
The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I
don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else
for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my
provider only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient ....
(don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Yeah! And I don't know much about it, either.
And I am betting that-- put in that situation today-- my brain has
slowed down WAY too much for me to do it again!
it was them drugs papa porn, the drugs, and being dropped on your
head, and papa porn, them times in the barrel didn't help either,
and my run on lines make you crazy too!
suny
Hey ! Tell me about his times in the barrel ! That should be good
for a laugh !
that be one of them little things best kept in the family, if ya know
what I mean, right papa porn!!!
It sounds pretty strange anyway...
just cause I no all don't mean i b tellin awl...
No "kiss and tell" from you, eh ?? <smiling...>


Rod
N***@no.spam
2007-09-30 15:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod
Hey ! Tell me about his times in the barrel ! That should be good for
a laugh !
Rod
That reminds me of Mom and I having our picture taken supposedly going
over Niagara Falls - we were told to 'look scared' as the piccie was
being snapped !!!! What a hoot:O)

N***@no.spam
2007-09-30 15:03:40 UTC
Permalink
it was them drugs papa porn, the drugs, and being dropped on=20
your head, and papa porn, them times in the barrel didn't=20
help either, and my run on lines make you crazy too!
suny
I wonder if he went over Niagara Falls in a barrel once too often?
LOL!
Rod
2007-09-30 01:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider only
allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
oops should have been here reading, not hear. sorry
Hi, Larry!
I'm winding down my time in here. I've pretty much gotten done what
I wanted to get done. (some 5 years of archiving.)
As for the mistake "hear" instead of "here", you'll note that, if
you're using Agent news reader, it will fix mistakes, unless the
mistake is a real word. Since "hear" is a real word, the computer
can't tell (at least Agent can't) what word you MEANT.
In that way, some things haven't changed. I was told WAY back when,
by my brother-in-law, a computer engineer, and by a number of other
computer scientists since then, computers are basically very fancy
adding machines (calculators, we call them now).
Computers are basically very stupid machines. "Garbage in, garbage
out."
Hi John,
Yes I agree about computers. As a close friend told me, they are no
smarter than the operator.
On the other hand...
I have also seen some very smart users (me for one), get computers
to do some amazing things!
For example: I worked for a Seattle engineering firm awhile back.
It's where I was working the nite my wife's water broke and our son
was born. The computer I was assigned to was an ancient .... (don't
know the name/ it escapes me), but a UNIX- based mainframe. (I HATE
mainframes, but if you can figure out how to communicate, they can run
circles around MOST PCs.
At any rate, this one was using an OS (Operating System) that was
OLDER (grand-daddy) of the modern UNIX system, a system called
"PRIME." Not being a programmer, I was not keen on learning the PRIME
language. But with the assignments they were giving me (putting out 5
- 25 Proposals a day; the engineering firms call them "Request For
Proposal" ( RFPs) My predecessor had knocked out THOUSANDS of RFPs
over her 10- or so years, but they weren't in any coherent arrangement
in the mainframe (not that I could detect).
I had to figure out her "filing system" (none), and then PROGRAM the
PRIME mainframe to kick out the proper proposal in response to a given
set of factors (# of stories, function, material used (is building
front glass, metal, or masonry)
I was getting NOWHERE with the programming until the engineer asked
me if I knew any DOS. I said I was a bit of a WHIZ with the DOS, so he
said there was a "short-cut" "pidgin PRIME" language (I forget the
name of the shortcut, pidgin PRIME), and that if I could learn perhaps
100 expressions, I could get the PRIME mainframe to "do my bidding."
I started looking at the "shortcut" language, pretty well mastered
it in a week or so (I kept running to him, asking him how to do a
particular task) I then tweaked the PRIME tasks, rearranged them, and
began to make the PRIME mainframe HUM.
HE came to me several times asking "how the H* did you get the
computer to do THAT?" I'd essentially "invented" a whole new
language, tweaking what was there.
Essentially, you can "outsmart" the computer.
john w
well I do not know anything about programming, maybe someday I will
try to learn it, but don't hold your breath on it. :)
Start with Basic and work up with a compiler like qbasic, then go
over to visual basic 6 or visual basic net. Microsoft has free compilers
for the visual suite that you can download from their websites.

Basic uses plain english commands and they are structured like the
following:

Input A$='This is basic';
Print A$
end

Sorry, I'm a little rusty on basic, it's hardly used anymore on Windows
systems. Visual Basic 6 is a derivative of basic and it is used all the
time on Microsoft OS's. Basic will give you a sound background for
learning the visual basic 6 or net, and even if you have no desire to
program for a living, their are actually a lot of very good amateurs
out there that should be programming for a living.


Rod
::: good news :::
2007-09-27 00:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider
only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
Hi Larry,

Thanks for your blessings, they are highly appreciated. I believe you
are doing the right thing. the life off-line has much to offer, too, and
most of the debates with the heretics here are useless anyway. But then
I think of all the people who will read in five years here - and what
will they find if they google for "God" or "Jesus", for example? I think
the enemy has long found out that the usenet is a good place to
undermine Christianity. He will have much pleasure to bring all the hate
and anti-Christian campaigns into the houses via internet. The usenet is
not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but a part of the houses and people
where it is read. So please do not give up, and just make the
difference. That is what I have always known you for, Brother. We were
foretold that we would be persecuted, were we not?

Some years ago when I thought I could not stand it here in the
newsgroups anymore, you were one of those who encouraged me to go on,
and I knew - not all of the people are the same - some - those who
belong to Him - are different.

May His grace and peace always be with you,

::: vera :::
l***@adelphia.net
2007-09-27 22:15:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:35:44 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider
only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your blessings, they are highly appreciated. I believe you
are doing the right thing. the life off-line has much to offer, too, and
most of the debates with the heretics here are useless anyway. But then
I think of all the people who will read in five years here - and what
will they find if they google for "God" or "Jesus", for example? I think
the enemy has long found out that the usenet is a good place to
undermine Christianity. He will have much pleasure to bring all the hate
and anti-Christian campaigns into the houses via internet. The usenet is
not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but a part of the houses and people
where it is read. So please do not give up, and just make the
difference. That is what I have always known you for, Brother. We were
foretold that we would be persecuted, were we not?
Vera,

You are welcome. And yes a life off line has a lot to offer. You can
also do a lot of research on line also. I feel a newsgroup is not a
good source for help or info. I used to feel differently, but when I
sat back and just read some of the postings from different people, I
saw things I did not care for. (sorry will not go into detail)

You are correct, usenet is not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but is
actually part of you or me or any other person. It is just an
extension (sp) or the person.

Oh I am not giving up, you don't have to worry about that.
Post by ::: good news :::
Some years ago when I thought I could not stand it here in the
newsgroups anymore, you were one of those who encouraged me to go on,
and I knew - not all of the people are the same - some - those who
belong to Him - are different.
I agree.
Post by ::: good news :::
May His grace and peace always be with you,
May God bring you peace and happiness all the days of your life,
Larry
l***@adelphia.net
2007-09-27 22:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:35:44 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't know
if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find. My
hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for that
matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider
only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your blessings, they are highly appreciated. I believe you
are doing the right thing. the life off-line has much to offer, too, and
most of the debates with the heretics here are useless anyway. But then
I think of all the people who will read in five years here - and what
will they find if they google for "God" or "Jesus", for example? I think
the enemy has long found out that the usenet is a good place to
undermine Christianity. He will have much pleasure to bring all the hate
and anti-Christian campaigns into the houses via internet. The usenet is
not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but a part of the houses and people
where it is read. So please do not give up, and just make the
difference. That is what I have always known you for, Brother. We were
foretold that we would be persecuted, were we not?
Vera,
You are welcome. And yes a life off line has a lot to offer. You can
also do a lot of research on line also. I feel a newsgroup is not a
good source for help or info. I used to feel differently, but when I
sat back and just read some of the postings from different people, I
saw things I did not care for. (sorry will not go into detail)
You are correct, usenet is not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but is
actually part of you or me or any other person. It is just an
extension (sp) or the person.
this should read of the person, not or the person. sorry
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Oh I am not giving up, you don't have to worry about that.
Post by ::: good news :::
Some years ago when I thought I could not stand it here in the
newsgroups anymore, you were one of those who encouraged me to go on,
and I knew - not all of the people are the same - some - those who
belong to Him - are different.
I agree.
Post by ::: good news :::
May His grace and peace always be with you,
May God bring you peace and happiness all the days of your life,
Larry
::: good news :::
2007-09-29 03:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:35:44 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries
are biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator.
The so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries
that agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily
bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The
KJV Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I
don't know if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to
find. My hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for
that matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider
only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your blessings, they are highly appreciated. I believe
you are doing the right thing. the life off-line has much to offer,
too, and most of the debates with the heretics here are useless
anyway. But then I think of all the people who will read in five
years here - and what will they find if they google for "God" or
"Jesus", for example? I think the enemy has long found out that the
usenet is a good place to undermine Christianity. He will have much
pleasure to bring all the hate and anti-Christian campaigns into
the houses via internet. The usenet is not a room somewhere in
cyberspace, but a part of the houses and people where it is read.
So please do not give up, and just make the difference. That is
what I have always known you for, Brother. We were foretold that we
would be persecuted, were we not?
Vera,
You are welcome. And yes a life off line has a lot to offer. You can
also do a lot of research on line also. I feel a newsgroup is not a
good source for help or info. I used to feel differently, but when I
sat back and just read some of the postings from different people, I
saw things I did not care for. (sorry will not go into detail)
You are correct, usenet is not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but is
actually part of you or me or any other person. It is just an
extension (sp) or the person.
this should read of the person, not or the person. sorry
[No problem - I would have known anyway. I cannot count all the mistakes
I make every day. I almost was a perfectionist, but then I started to
write in English, and I had to see that I could not be perfect and had
to accept my mistakes. My English has improved in the last years, but
there is still so much to learn. Sometimes I do not know the correct
German words anymore. lol So my English is not perfect, and my German
has become worse, too. Oh, and then all the typos...That is life, ha,
ha. We are not perfect yet.]
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Oh I am not giving up, you don't have to worry about that.
Post by ::: good news :::
Some years ago when I thought I could not stand it here in the
newsgroups anymore, you were one of those who encouraged me to go
on, and I knew - not all of the people are the same - some - those
who belong to Him - are different.
I agree.
Post by ::: good news :::
May His grace and peace always be with you,
May God bring you peace and happiness all the days of your life,
Larry
::: good news :::
2007-09-29 02:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:35:44 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:33:16 +0200, " ::: good news :::"
Post by ::: good news :::
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by Carl
Post by c***@flapper.com
Most parallel NTs don't have commentaries. ALL commentaries are
biased towards the a priori beliefs of the commentator. The
so-called "unbiased" commentaries are merely commentaries that
agree with YOUR bias. Being biased is not necessarily bad.
BTW, checker, have you ever checked out (no pun intended) The KJV
Parallel Bible Commentary published by Thomas Nelson? I don't
know if it is still in print or not nor how easy it is to find.
My hardback copy was printed in 1994.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,
For you info, here is a couple of sites you or anyone else for
that matter can order it.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=09235&event=ECF
http://www.amazon.com/KJV-Parallel-Bible-Commentary/dp/0840718489
May God bless you,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the links, and glad to read you again. Long not read!
I hope you are fine, and Carl, too.
[I am sorry I had to snip a number of groups, because my provider
only allows six at a time.]
God bless you,
Hi Vera,
You are welcome for the links, and yes it has been a while since I
posted. I have been hear reading, but refuse to get caught up in it.
May God be with you and keep you safe,
Larry
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your blessings, they are highly appreciated. I believe you
are doing the right thing. the life off-line has much to offer, too,
and most of the debates with the heretics here are useless anyway.
But then I think of all the people who will read in five years here
- and what will they find if they google for "God" or "Jesus", for
example? I think the enemy has long found out that the usenet is a
good place to undermine Christianity. He will have much pleasure to
bring all the hate and anti-Christian campaigns into the houses via
internet. The usenet is not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but a
part of the houses and people where it is read. So please do not
give up, and just make the difference. That is what I have always
known you for, Brother. We were foretold that we would be
persecuted, were we not?
Vera,
You are welcome. And yes a life off line has a lot to offer. You can
also do a lot of research on line also. I feel a newsgroup is not a
good source for help or info. I used to feel differently, but when I
sat back and just read some of the postings from different people, I
saw things I did not care for. (sorry will not go into detail)
You are correct, usenet is not a room somewhere in cyberspace, but is
actually part of you or me or any other person. It is just an
extension (sp) or the person.
Oh I am not giving up, you don't have to worry about that.
Hi Larry,

That is good to know that you are not giving up. And you are right that
a newsgroup is no good source for help or information, but there are
readers who come here, and posters as well. You can also find many of
our posts in internet forums if you google for special terms. I think we
should not forget that. It is what people from other countries like
China and the like get if they know a little English and want to find
out about Christianity. So what should they find there? Only the words
written by heretics and internet trolls?

Of course the usenet is a place where many cultists (to use this word
carefully - I mean people with a bizarre way to interpret the
Scriptures, aiming at making converts) are around, because they cannot
really be stopped to spread their ideas here.
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by ::: good news :::
Some years ago when I thought I could not stand it here in the
newsgroups anymore, you were one of those who encouraged me to go on,
and I knew - not all of the people are the same - some - those who
belong to Him - are different.
I agree.
:-)
Post by l***@adelphia.net
Post by ::: good news :::
May His grace and peace always be with you,
May God bring you peace and happiness all the days of your life,
Larry
Thanks! Peace and happiness is a great mixture.

I wish the same to you, and may the Lord bless you even more.

::: vera :::
Vernono O
2007-09-23 19:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
The Bolinger bible (companion Bible) is one of the greatest study
bibles out.
not as doctrinly biased as Schofield, Thompson or Dakes Bibles
To see the variations of source scriptures
let Me recomend the Newberry study bible.
it shows what most early source manuscripts actually say, and how they
are.
many paralel New testaments are also biased by Doctrins
the 11 translation new testament is a GREAT source
for comparison
I like the Dugan anylitical topical referencrce Bible in it's form and
fullness without bias
Bollinger has a lot of very interesting thoughts, like the 5 Crosses.
I like the uncial greek compilation of the
concordant greek text, and the concordant Study bible
Agreed
Sam Taylor
2007-09-23 07:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
It actualy does if you understand "Unearned mercy" is actualy grace.
Salvation DOES NOT depend on specific doctrine, but belief in Him
if it were by Doctrins, then salvation would be by WORKS and NOT grace
"Unearned Mercy" or "Unmerited Favor" another NWT term for GRACE.
Post by Vernono O
Post by Carl
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
c***@flapper.com
2007-09-23 13:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
It actualy does if you understand "Unearned mercy" is actualy grace.
Salvation DOES NOT depend on specific doctrine, but belief in Him
if it were by Doctrins, then salvation would be by WORKS and NOT grace
"Unearned Mercy" or "Unmerited Favor" another NWT term for GRACE.
Doctrines. . .D O C T R I N _E_ S.

(Sorry bout that, but as a retired elementary and middle-school
teacher. . .)

Rom 10:14-17
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And
how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how
shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach
unless they are sent? As it is written:

"How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!"

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD,
who has believed our report?" 17 So then faith comes by hearing ,
and hearing by the word of God.
NKJV

Usually it takes some Christian to TELL THEM. . .

in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Sam Taylor
2007-09-24 19:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
It actualy does if you understand "Unearned mercy" is actualy grace.
Salvation DOES NOT depend on specific doctrine, but belief in Him
if it were by Doctrins, then salvation would be by WORKS and NOT grace
"Unearned Mercy" or "Unmerited Favor" another NWT term for GRACE.
Doctrines. . .D O C T R I N _E_ S.
I was watching a great program on PBS and was typing at the same time.
butt mowstley eye tri too bee moure Kareful whaenn responnding
too powsts
hi hi
I will be more carefull in the my postings
from now on
Post by c***@flapper.com
(Sorry bout that, but as a retired elementary and middle-school
teacher. . .)
Rom 10:14-17
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And
how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how
shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach
"How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD,
who has believed our report?" 17 So then faith comes by hearing ,
and hearing by the word of God.
NKJV
Usually it takes some Christian to TELL THEM. . .
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
c***@flapper.com
2007-09-24 20:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by c***@flapper.com
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
It actualy does if you understand "Unearned mercy" is actualy grace.
Salvation DOES NOT depend on specific doctrine, but belief in Him
if it were by Doctrins, then salvation would be by WORKS and NOT grace
"Unearned Mercy" or "Unmerited Favor" another NWT term for GRACE.
Doctrines. . .D O C T R I N _E_ S.
I was watching a great program on PBS and was typing at the same time.
butt mowstley eye tri too bee moure Kareful whaenn responnding
too powsts
hi hi
I will be more carefull in the my postings
from now on
Oahkaye
gudinuff
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by c***@flapper.com
(Sorry bout that, but as a retired elementary and middle-school
teacher. . .)
Rom 10:14-17
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And
how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how
shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach
"How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD,
who has believed our report?" 17 So then faith comes by hearing ,
and hearing by the word of God.
NKJV
Usually it takes some Christian to TELL THEM. . .
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
Vernono O
2007-09-23 19:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
It actualy does if you understand "Unearned mercy" is actualy grace.
Salvation DOES NOT depend on specific doctrine, but belief in Him
if it were by Doctrins, then salvation would be by WORKS and NOT grace
"Unearned Mercy" or "Unmerited Favor" another NWT term for GRACE.
Salvation is from God, period.

Also, I meant the whole of the JW version not just a single word.
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Carl
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
c***@flapper.com
2007-09-23 13:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
Post by Carl
Post by Vernono O
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a
website? If so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted,
would you please post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
The church of the internet. Imaginary
The same church in which Steve Winter and BR Collins preach? :-)
It's sad.
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
I have a friend who was led to Jesus Christ (the REAL one, not the jw
one) using his own VERY BAD TRANSLATION, the New World Translation.

I KNOW you are right about God speaking to newbies through any
translation!

God Bless,
Checker
Carl
2007-09-23 20:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
Post by Carl
Post by Vernono O
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a
website? If so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted,
would you please post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
The church of the internet. Imaginary
The same church in which Steve Winter and BR Collins preach? :-)
It's sad.
BUT re: KJV study bible.
For all of it's faults, I like "The Companion Bible" as a "study" bible.
I like the NKJV of Nelson (The more expensive editions.) It includes all
variations of the texts from various MSS.
I personally believe God will speak to a newby through any translation. I
have read, cover to cover, every English translation available from KJV to
Peterson's, "The message"
The "GOSPEL" is in all. Well maybe with the possible exclusion of the JW
version.
I have and regularly use the NIV Study Bible, the KJV Study Bible (Thomas
Nelson Pub.), the Ryrie Study Bible and the MacArthur Study Bible. Also I
have the PC Study Bible (v.4) program on my PC by BibleSoft which I highly
recommend. Also I recommend Nave's Topical Bible when studying a specific
topic. It definitely is a big benefit in my studies. Also some excellent
Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammar reference books. I also have
various other Christian reference books to aid me in my studies as well. For
example, for laypeople like myself, I would recommend Halley's Bible
Handbook and Cruden's Compact Concordance to have onhand as excellent
resources.

As to translations, I normally use the NIV and enjoy the KJV especially the
poetic nature of that form of English (although upon viewing some hi-res
photos of some original 1611 KJV pages, I discovered that I am unable to
effectively read that form of English when written in the 1611-era style). I
also have an ASV Bible as well. However via my Bible programs and also
online Bibles, I have access to most all English translations although I do
not recommend them all (for example I cannot in good conscience and knowing
what I know about it recommend the NWT as a valid, reliable translation when
it has been proven to be flawed and biased to WTBTS false teachings).

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Bible Bob
2007-09-23 05:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by Vernono O
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a website?
If so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted, would you
please post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
The church of the internet. Imaginary
The same church in which Steve Winter and BR Collins preach? :-)
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl,

The one you spam to and lie in.

BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
Vernono O
2007-09-23 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:30:14 -0400, "Carl"
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a website?
If
so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted, would you
please
post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
And there it is. As usual, when they can't dispute
what you've said, they try to attack you personally,
as if doing so means that what you said can't be true.
And they think people are stupid enough to fall
for that.
You are as transparent as glass!
The internet miraculously erased your answers to the questions.
Carl
2007-09-23 21:09:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:30:14 -0400, "Carl"
I have read some of Dave's "proof", did a little online research and
found
that his "proof" has long since been refuted so I dismiss it as being
that
from someone misinformed.
Sure you do. That's why folks like you love to keep
making those claims and yet, when it's posted, you
can't seem to dispute a damn thing!
I have seen your posts for some time now and notice you use the title
"Pastor." Would you please tell me what church you pastor and what
denomination, if any, it is? Also, would you please give me your
qualification for pastoring your church? Does this church have a website?
If
so, is its statement of faith posted? If it is not posted, would you
please
post the statement of faith of the church you pastor?
And there it is. As usual, when they can't dispute
what you've said, they try to attack you personally,
as if doing so means that what you said can't be true.
There was nothing in my questions above that could be reasonably construed
as being ad hominem. Would you mind answering the questions? I am not
ashamed of my personal statement of faith which can be read at
http://www.nettally.com/saints/affirmat.html if you or anyone else would
care to.
And they think people are stupid enough to fall
for that.
Fall for what? Asking about one's beliefs? I assumed that you would be
prepared to give an answer to anyone who asked you to give the reason for
the hope that you have. Did I assume incorrectly regarding your willingness?
If not, would you please answer the questions I originally asked of you?

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl
2007-09-23 21:12:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:32:44 -0400, "Carl"
I state facts and I proved them to be facts.
In regards to your "corrupt texts" claim, you have proven nothing to
support
such a claim.
You must be incredibly stupid to think that I would
fall for such a stupid maneuver. Goodbye, stupid.
Since you have nothing substantive to offer, your response only supports my
contention. But since your original claim has long since been refuted by
other Christians who have researched the matter, I know the truth on this
particual topic resides not with you. However I thank you for showing your
true colors by the method of your responses. At first I was not sure of your
sincerity and honesty but now, by the nature of your words (especially the
insults and the uncivil nature) I see you are neither sincere nor honest.
Thank you for showing your true self.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Carl
2007-09-26 05:42:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:04:05 -0400, Pastor Dave
What you have done, is insult me and pretend that
equates to an intelligent argument. You are an idiot,
In other words, you still cannot answer for the false accusation you
made, everyone can see it, so you feel the need to feel insulted and
call names to try to "cover it up."
WHICH translation are you claiming I love more than truth? YOU
falsely accuesed me of loving my translation more than I love the
Truth. I use the kjv, nkjv, nasb, and the Greek New Testament. WHICH
ONE are you falsely claiming I love more than the Truth?
Or are you simply lying because you cannot offer any HONEST reason to
call every translation except YOUR "special" translation (the kjv)
"corrupt?"
in the Name of Jesus Christ,
Checker
I am discovering a fairly common pattern of people falsely claiming to be a
"Pastor" or a "Reverend" showing themselves to be frauds by their very
unBiblical words and actions. Steve Winter was (and is) that way. BR Collins
is as well. Now Dave.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
N***@no.spam
2007-09-26 14:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
I am discovering a fairly common pattern of people falsely claiming to be a
"Pastor" or a "Reverend" showing themselves to be frauds by their very
unBiblical words and actions. Steve Winter was (and is) that way. BR Collins
is as well. Now Dave.
May God bless,
Carl
And John Weatherly. He also claims to be 'an ordained Pastor'.
Vernono O
2007-09-26 16:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:04:05 -0400, Pastor Dave
What you have done, is insult me and pretend that
equates to an intelligent argument. You are an idiot,
In other words, you still cannot answer for the false accusation you
made, everyone can see it, so you feel the need to feel insulted and
call names to try to "cover it up."
WHICH translation are you claiming I love more than truth? YOU
falsely accuesed me of loving my translation more than I love the
Truth. I use the kjv, nkjv, nasb, and the Greek New Testament. WHICH
ONE are you falsely claiming I love more than the Truth?
Or are you simply lying because you cannot offer any HONEST reason to
call every translation except YOUR "special" translation (the kjv)
"corrupt?"
in the Name of Jesus Christ,
Checker
I am discovering a fairly common pattern of people falsely claiming to be
a "Pastor" or a "Reverend" showing themselves to be frauds by their very
unBiblical words and actions. Steve Winter was (and is) that way. BR
Collins is as well. Now Dave.
May God bless,
Carl
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Sam Taylor
2007-09-26 19:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
Post by Carl
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:04:05 -0400, Pastor Dave
What you have done, is insult me and pretend that
equates to an intelligent argument. You are an idiot,
In other words, you still cannot answer for the false accusation you
made, everyone can see it, so you feel the need to feel insulted and
call names to try to "cover it up."
WHICH translation are you claiming I love more than truth? YOU
falsely accuesed me of loving my translation more than I love the
Truth. I use the kjv, nkjv, nasb, and the Greek New Testament. WHICH
ONE are you falsely claiming I love more than the Truth?
Or are you simply lying because you cannot offer any HONEST reason to
call every translation except YOUR "special" translation (the kjv)
"corrupt?"
in the Name of Jesus Christ,
Checker
I am discovering a fairly common pattern of people falsely claiming to be
a "Pastor" or a "Reverend" showing themselves to be frauds by their very
unBiblical words and actions. Steve Winter was (and is) that way. BR
Collins is as well. Now Dave.
May God bless,
Carl
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Actualy G-Ds name is "Reverend" not to be applied to Man acording to
scripture
Vernono O
2007-09-27 01:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Carl
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:04:05 -0400, Pastor Dave
What you have done, is insult me and pretend that
equates to an intelligent argument. You are an idiot,
In other words, you still cannot answer for the false accusation you
made, everyone can see it, so you feel the need to feel insulted and
call names to try to "cover it up."
WHICH translation are you claiming I love more than truth? YOU
falsely accuesed me of loving my translation more than I love the
Truth. I use the kjv, nkjv, nasb, and the Greek New Testament. WHICH
ONE are you falsely claiming I love more than the Truth?
Or are you simply lying because you cannot offer any HONEST reason to
call every translation except YOUR "special" translation (the kjv)
"corrupt?"
in the Name of Jesus Christ,
Checker
I am discovering a fairly common pattern of people falsely claiming to be
a "Pastor" or a "Reverend" showing themselves to be frauds by their very
unBiblical words and actions. Steve Winter was (and is) that way. BR
Collins is as well. Now Dave.
May God bless,
Carl
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Actualy G-Ds name is "Reverend" not to be applied to Man acording to
scripture
WRONG
Learn English and the Bible.
Sam Taylor
2007-09-27 17:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Actualy G-Ds name is "Reverend" not to be applied to Man acording to
scripture
WRONG
Learn English and the Bible.
Reply
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend

is written in scripture
now IF in fact
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend,
makes me think it would be Improper for Me to call
ANYONE that other than GOD
Vernono O
2007-09-27 18:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Actualy G-Ds name is "Reverend" not to be applied to Man acording to
scripture
WRONG
Learn English and the Bible.
Reply
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend
is written in scripture
now IF in fact
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend,
makes me think it would be Improper for Me to call
ANYONE that other than GOD
Name is reverend?
Makes no English sense.
Reverend is not a name.
No man should have a title inferring that he is in higher regard in God.
Different story.
I don't even like the term Doctor and don't call anyone Pastor.
Sam Taylor
2007-09-27 22:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Actualy G-Ds name is "Reverend" not to be applied to Man acording to
scripture
WRONG
Learn English and the Bible.
Reply
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend
is written in scripture
now IF in fact
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend,
makes me think it would be Improper for Me to call
ANYONE that other than GOD
Name is reverend?
Makes no English sense.
Reverend is not a name.
acording to scripture it is one of GODs Names
Post by Vernono O
No man should have a title inferring that he is in higher regard in God.
Different story.
I don't even like the term Doctor and don't call anyone Pastor.
Vernono O
2007-09-28 00:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Actualy G-Ds name is "Reverend" not to be applied to Man acording to
scripture
WRONG
Learn English and the Bible.
Reply
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend
is written in scripture
now IF in fact
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend,
makes me think it would be Improper for Me to call
ANYONE that other than GOD
Name is reverend?
Makes no English sense.
Reverend is not a name.
acording to scripture it is one of GODs Names
So the writers of scripture are illiterate?
1.. Psalm 111:9
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
Psalm 111:8-10 (in Context) Psalm 111 (Whole Chapter)
Or you can't read English.

DUUUHHHHH
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
No man should have a title inferring that he is in higher regard in God.
Different story.
I don't even like the term Doctor and don't call anyone Pastor.
Carl
2007-09-29 02:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
So the writers of scripture are illiterate?
1.. Psalm 111:9
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
Psalm 111:8-10 (in Context) Psalm 111 (Whole Chapter)
Or you can't read English.
Just for being thorough, let's look at different translations:

Ps 111:9
(NIV)
He provided redemption for his people; he ordained his covenant forever -
holy and awesome is his name.

(NKJV)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has commanded His covenant forever:
Holy and awesome is His name.

(NASU)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever;
Holy and awesome is His name.

(KJV)
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever:
holy and reverend is his name.

(ASV)
He hath sent redemption unto his people; He hath commanded his covenant for
ever: Holy and reverend is his name.

(AMP)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has commanded His covenant to be
forever; holy is His name, inspiring awe, reverence, and godly fear.

(NASB)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever;
Holy and awesome is His name.

(NRSV)
He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant forever.
Holy and awesome is his name.

(RSV)
He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant for ever.
Holy and terrible is his name!

(YLT)
Redemption He hath sent to His people, He hath appointed to the age His
covenant, Holy and fearful [is] His name.

(Interlinear Transliterated Bible)
Pªduwt shaalach lª`amow Tsiwaah- lª`owlaam bªriytow Qaadowsh wªnowraa'
shªmow

According to Strong's Hebrew/Greek Dictionary:

OT:3372 ***@y* yare' (yaw-ray'); a primitive root; to fear; morally, to
revere; caus. to frighten:

KJV - affright, be (make) afraid, dread (-ful), (put in) fear
(-ful, -fully, -ing), (be had in) reverence (-end), see, terrible
(act, -ness, thing).
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew
Dictionary)

I offer all the above information for whatever it's worth.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Vernono O
2007-09-29 14:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl
Post by Vernono O
So the writers of scripture are illiterate?
1.. Psalm 111:9
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
Psalm 111:8-10 (in Context) Psalm 111 (Whole Chapter)
Or you can't read English.
Ps 111:9
(NIV)
He provided redemption for his people; he ordained his covenant forever -
holy and awesome is his name.
(NKJV)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has commanded His covenant
forever: Holy and awesome is His name.
(NASU)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant
forever; Holy and awesome is His name.
(KJV)
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
(ASV)
He hath sent redemption unto his people; He hath commanded his covenant
for ever: Holy and reverend is his name.
(AMP)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has commanded His covenant to be
forever; holy is His name, inspiring awe, reverence, and godly fear.
(NASB)
He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant
forever; Holy and awesome is His name.
(NRSV)
He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant forever.
Holy and awesome is his name.
(RSV)
He sent redemption to his people; he has commanded his covenant for ever.
Holy and terrible is his name!
(YLT)
Redemption He hath sent to His people, He hath appointed to the age His
covenant, Holy and fearful [is] His name.
(Interlinear Transliterated Bible)
Pªduwt shaalach lª`amow Tsiwaah- lª`owlaam bªriytow Qaadowsh wªnowraa'
shªmow
KJV - affright, be (make) afraid, dread (-ful), (put in) fear
(-ful, -fully, -ing), (be had in) reverence (-end), see, terrible
(act, -ness, thing).
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
Greek-Hebrew Dictionary)
I offer all the above information for whatever it's worth.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Yep DESCRIPTIONS of His name, not replacements for His name.
Bible Bob
2007-09-28 10:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
Post by Sam Taylor
Post by Vernono O
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
Actualy G-Ds name is "Reverend" not to be applied to Man acording to
scripture
WRONG
Learn English and the Bible.
Reply
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend
is written in scripture
now IF in fact
GOD who's name ALONE is reverend,
makes me think it would be Improper for Me to call
ANYONE that other than GOD
Name is reverend?
Makes no English sense.
Reverend is not a name.
acording to scripture it is one of GODs Names
Post by Vernono O
No man should have a title inferring that he is in higher regard in God.
Different story.
I don't even like the term Doctor and don't call anyone Pastor.
Sam,

On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".

Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
introverted and alternated. See pages 832,833 here:

http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
Sam Taylor
2007-09-28 17:47:39 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Bible Bob
Sam,
On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".
Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
That Scripture says that "GOD who's name ALONE is reverend"
Implies that it would be improper to call Anyone but GOD by the
name of reverend.
Vernono O
2007-09-28 18:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
.
Post by Bible Bob
Sam,
On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".
Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
That Scripture says that "GOD who's name ALONE is reverend"
Implies that it would be improper to call Anyone but GOD by the
name of reverend.
Yes, do not call anyone but God, reverend.

"Name of" makes no English sense.
Quit your degrading of scripture.
Learn the difference between 1600 English and 2007 English.
Today the word would be revered or awesome.

Amplified Bible
9He has sent redemption to His people; He has commanded His covenant to be
forever; holy is His name, inspiring awe, reverence, and godly fear.
Bible Bob
2007-09-28 20:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Taylor
.
Post by Bible Bob
Sam,
On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".
Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
That Scripture says that "GOD who's name ALONE is reverend"
Implies that it would be improper to call Anyone but GOD by the
name of reverend.
Here is what the Scripture says:

Psa 111:9 KJV
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.

That is the only place in the Bible where the word reverend is used.
It does not say "God who's name ALONE is reverend. Holy and reverend
are used as adjectives; not proper nouns. His "name" is holy and his
name is reverend. His name is Jehovah (verses 4 and 10).



BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
Jim
2007-09-29 00:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bible Bob
Post by Sam Taylor
.
Post by Bible Bob
Sam,
On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".
Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
That Scripture says that "GOD who's name ALONE is reverend"
Implies that it would be improper to call Anyone but GOD by the
name of reverend.
Psa 111:9 KJV
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
That is the only place in the Bible where the word reverend is used.
It does not say "God who's name ALONE is reverend.
That's not the point - the point is that those who have the title of "Reverend"
before their name are frauds who like the feeling of being highly esteemed
in the sight of others.

Luke 16:15 (NKJV) And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves
before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men
is an abomination in the sight of God.
Bible Bob
2007-09-29 00:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by Bible Bob
Post by Sam Taylor
.
Post by Bible Bob
Sam,
On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".
Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
That Scripture says that "GOD who's name ALONE is reverend"
Implies that it would be improper to call Anyone but GOD by the
name of reverend.
Psa 111:9 KJV
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
That is the only place in the Bible where the word reverend is used.
It does not say "God who's name ALONE is reverend.
That's not the point - the point is that those who have the title of "Reverend"
before their name are frauds who like the feeling of being highly esteemed
in the sight of others.
Luke 16:15 (NKJV) And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves
before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men
is an abomination in the sight of God.
Jim,

I don't like the use of the title either. God gave his
representatives better titles in the NT (apsotles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, and teachers) and those are the titles that
should be used.

In fact, I think every Reverend should change his title to "Awesome"
or "Fearful" so that the meaning of the title would be more accurate.
Just think those with the title Right Reverend would be called Right
Awesome or Right Fearful.

Just think Jim, you could become Right Awesome Jim or Right Fearful
Jim.

BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
Glenn
2007-09-30 02:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bible Bob
Post by Jim
Post by Bible Bob
Post by Sam Taylor
.
Post by Bible Bob
Sam,
On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".
Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
That Scripture says that "GOD who's name ALONE is reverend"
Implies that it would be improper to call Anyone but GOD by the
name of reverend.
Psa 111:9 KJV
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
That is the only place in the Bible where the word reverend is used.
It does not say "God who's name ALONE is reverend.
That's not the point - the point is that those who have the title of "Reverend"
before their name are frauds who like the feeling of being highly esteemed
in the sight of others.
Luke 16:15 (NKJV) And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves
before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men
is an abomination in the sight of God.
Jim,
I don't like the use of the title either. God gave his
representatives better titles in the NT (apsotles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, and teachers) and those are the titles that
should be used.
In fact, I think every Reverend should change his title to "Awesome"
or "Fearful" so that the meaning of the title would be more accurate.
Just think those with the title Right Reverend would be called Right
Awesome or Right Fearful.
Just think Jim, you could become Right Awesome Jim or Right Fearful
Jim.
BB,

Satire -- and not so stealthy criticism -- is dangerous... it is wasted
on those who do not comprehend it.

But then, I've mentioned before that you are a comedian looking for a
gig among staving comics....

OTOH...

BTW, you make a good point, it is just that you fail to GET the point:
It is not the ink on paper, it is the Spirit.

The Spirit of God is witnessing to you, waiting...
Wondering....
...When, BB, will you learn the difference between the ink on the paper
and His Spirit?




Glenn
His witness
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
Bible Bob
2007-09-30 02:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Post by Bible Bob
Post by Jim
Post by Bible Bob
Post by Sam Taylor
.
Post by Bible Bob
Sam,
On the other side of the conjunction "and" is "holy"; "holy" and
"fearful" is his name. The Hebrew nora is from yare; to be afraid. It
is his name that is holy. It is his name that is to be feared. Yare
is used 334 time in the OT where it is translated as "afraid",
"fearful", etc. Only once is he word translated "reverend".
Also, Psalm 111 is an acrostic Psalm. The passages in the Psalm ae
http://www.companion-bible.com/CBPdffiles/15%20Psalms%20720-864.pdf
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
That Scripture says that "GOD who's name ALONE is reverend"
Implies that it would be improper to call Anyone but GOD by the
name of reverend.
Psa 111:9 KJV
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for
ever: holy and reverend is his name.
That is the only place in the Bible where the word reverend is used.
It does not say "God who's name ALONE is reverend.
That's not the point - the point is that those who have the title of "Reverend"
before their name are frauds who like the feeling of being highly esteemed
in the sight of others.
Luke 16:15 (NKJV) And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves
before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men
is an abomination in the sight of God.
Jim,
I don't like the use of the title either. God gave his
representatives better titles in the NT (apsotles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, and teachers) and those are the titles that
should be used.
In fact, I think every Reverend should change his title to "Awesome"
or "Fearful" so that the meaning of the title would be more accurate.
Just think those with the title Right Reverend would be called Right
Awesome or Right Fearful.
Just think Jim, you could become Right Awesome Jim or Right Fearful
Jim.
BB,
Satire -- and not so stealthy criticism -- is dangerous... it is wasted
on those who do not comprehend it.
But then, I've mentioned before that you are a comedian looking for a
gig among staving comics....
OTOH...
It is not the ink on paper, it is the Spirit.
The Spirit of God is witnessing to you, waiting...
Wondering....
...When, BB, will you learn the difference between the ink on the paper
and His Spirit?
Glenn
His witness
Glenn,

A long time ago.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
N***@no.spam
2007-09-26 20:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vernono O
I would use Rev. but most would assume Reverend rather than Revered One.
I just had to post that for those who love me so much :>)
You might as well use that title, Vernon- some others here do who
aren't real ministers either!!!! :o)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...