Where has this gotten you?

Roby, I read this page with great interest and even forwarded it to a friend of mine who has corresponded w/ Mr Cloud, mostly about CCM, in fact my friend post on the BB forums about that topic (Eric B)...anyhow, I went to the homepage and see that the site owner, editor, or whatever he's called paints Mr Cloud with the same brush as John MacArthur and Chas Spurgeon...so that "atruechurch" was anything but.

 

Roby, I read this page with great interest and even forwarded it to a friend of mine who has corresponded w/ Mr Cloud, mostly about CCM, in fact my friend post on the BB forums about that topic (Eric B)...anyhow, I went to the homepage and see that the site owner, editor, or whatever he's called paints Mr Cloud with the same brush as John MacArthur and Chas Spurgeon...so that "atruechurch" was anything but. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. Anyone who cites Darwin Fish as an authority on anything is sadly lacking in discernment.

 

Even one change is a difference, and "things that are different are not the same".

 

It is a sad situation. A couple pastors have told their "subjects" that they were not allowed to attend the upcoming class.
Like that's going to go over in a Baptist church!!!
Wonder what will happen when they do?

I need a lot of prayer, not only me, but the churches that are dealing with this.

I am blessed enough to be in one that allows Truth to enter.

I'm afraid that when Jesus came knocking on a lot of churches doors, they wouldn't let him in because He was *JUST* the King of Kings, and not the King of England.

 

Precepts:"Cranston, I see what you posted by the fellow, but this is exactly what we are talking about, there are no "real" changes, only a word or two that is actually a definitive and not really a change at all. It's this type of "changes" that are pointed out in the KJB that amount up to literally nothing. Do you know what "nothing" is? It's the zero with the rim knocked off."

But if the AV 1611, which you've repeatedly professed to use, has some 136 changes made in just 151 years. then either it or the 1762 wasn't perfect. ANY change in a perfect thing mekes it less than perfect. "Perfect" is the pinnacle. Any change is downhill-you cannot make something "more perfect". So, which one is perfect?

 

You eat Bobs ribs, from Bobs bbq? Great arent they? Eat there often myself. Only bad thing about it, is after the kids eat you cant tell where bbq sauce stops and child starts.
As far as the kjvo stuff in our state? Sad but true. I was joking around about this with a fellow believer the other day who is not a Baptist, and said to him "why did this cultic doctrine have to pick the Baptist church to pop up in?" Oh well, this type of thing (doctrine with little to do with Jesus)shows up in other denominations, I guess it was our turn. Satan knows he cant destroy the church from the outside, so he's working overtime on the inside, and it seems there are far to many willing to help him out. One of my many problems with the kjvo movement(by the way,I dont hate the KJV, I preach out of sometimes)is that if I believed that the true word of God was entrusted to the Anglican church, I would also have to conclude that the Anglican church must be the true church of the Lord, and join them.

 

What would you call a "real" change? Would you call changing "lamb" to "ram" a "real change?" Would you call changing the phrase "helps in governments" to "helps, governments" a "real change?" What about changing "stroke" to "struck?" Or, "Jew" to "Jewess?" What about changing "God" to "LORD" a couple times? Is that a "real" change?

If these are not "real changes" haven't you adopted a double standard for criticizing some of the modern versions for making similar changes, substituting a synonym for the word you prefer?

 

I see. So you are saying the KJV is wrong for translating the same Hebrew word translated "flattereth" as "deceive" 8 times in the Old Testament, and "entice" 10 times? Or that the KJV is wrong for translating the same Hebrew word translated "flattereth" as "divide" 40 times in the Old Testament?

Oh, and, just a small observation. The word "flattered" doesn't appear anywhere in the KJV.

 

So you don't believe they were practicing deceit in their faked relationship with God? After all, if you will check the American Heritage Dictionary you will note that "deceive" means "to practice deceit." Are you now saying they were telling the truth?

 

I am unaware of the context? Well, let's examine that claim:

Psalm 78 is a didactic Psalm. That means it was used as a teaching aid when instructing children how good God had been to Israel, even during their forefather's rebellion and lack of gratitude. If the children learn this lesson well, they will not "be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God." (verse 8).

So, in that context we see the command to listen to the instruction in verses 1-11. This is followed by a lecture on God's gracious works in the history of Israel in verses 12-39. Then, in verses 40-72 we see the lesson repeated.

So, in that context, let's look at what the bible says:

35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

The bible says that Israel finally, if belatedly, remembered Who God was and what He had done for them.

36 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

But, in spite of their having remembered Who He was and what He had done, they, nevertheless "did flatter Him with the mouth and they "lied unto him with their tongues."

Now, it is fairly well know that Hebrew poetic writings, which the Psalms most assuredly are, are characterized by three types of parallelism. 1. Synonymous Parallelism. 2. Antithetical Parallelism. 3. Synthetic Parallelism (also called Constructive Parallelism).

These three types of parallelism are characterized by the following. The 1st is characterized by "repetition of similar or identical words or phrases." The second by "repetition of opposite terms or sentiments in which two lines contrast with one another." And the third by "repetition of similar or identical grammatical constructions in parallel lines." The third is hard to discern in English for the grammatical constructions of Hebrew do not equate to the same grammatical constructions in English.

Now, let's look back to Psalm 78:36, "Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues." This is an example of Synonymous Parallelism, the "repetition of similar or identical words or phrases." The first part of the verse, "Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth" is synonymous (means the same thing as) the second half of the verse, "and they lied unto him with their tongues."

Now, note, the bible says "they did flatter him with their lips" and they "lied unto him with their tongues." Those two clauses are synonymous (they mean the same thing). So, it is obvious that "flatter" and "lied" are synonymous terms here. So, to translate "flatter" as "deceive" is perfectly in tune with the context! They were deceitful in their approach to God!

It seems to me that your charge of my being "unaware of the context" is not only untrue, but really applies to you and not to me!

 

No, I didn't join the two together, God did when He inspired Psalm 78 using Synonymous Parallelism.

Uh, well, uh, NO! It is doing what Synonymous Parallelism always does! It is joining the two clauses together by repetition of similar or identical words or phrases. In case you were not paying attention in 4th grade, a conjunction is a word that serves to connect words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. Conjunctions can be either connectives or appositives. Connectives connect things and appositives place words in apposition. (Oh, and, by the way, "conjuction" is spelled "conjunction." )

Yet, it says they lied to Him. Nobody has said He was fooled by their lies, but you can't deny they lied to Him and tried to deceive Him!

Then you don't understand what "deceive" really means. The dictionary says it simply means "to be deceptive."

If it is so simple to be understood, why don't you understand it? "Flatter him with their mouth" = "lied unto him with their tongues." God says so, and I believe it. If you don't believe it, you will have to take it up with the God who inspired it.