King James Bible

[Green Beret]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

 

[prophet]

What did King James' bias towards anything have to do with the actual translation?
Did he sit on  one of the committees?

King James I did not have to sit on one of the committees or be an actual translator to have influence on the making of the KJV.

As King and as head of the Church of England, King James I made or approved the rules for the making of the translation, which would greatly influence its making.

In addition, King James I had Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee and control the making of the new translation.

    In his introduction to a reprint of the Geneva Bible, Michael Brown claimed:  "James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved in the project to make an honest translation" (p. vi).  S. E. Anderson contended:  "The King James translators were prejudiced, and ordered  to  be  so  by  King  James  himself"  (Scofieldism  Upgraded, p. 14).  Anderson also asserted:  "When the Authorized Version of our Bible was to be translated, King James commanded not to undermine any of the beliefs of the Church of England.  Ecclesia was not to be 'congregation' or 'assembly,' because they held to the invisible, universal theory" (Baptists Unshackled, p. 98).  Alexander Carson (1776-1846) wrote:  "There was the strongest temptation to induce them to accommodate their translation to the practice of their church" (Baptism, p. 123).  Henry Fox asserted that the KJV translators “were bound by a code of rules drawn up by their president, Archbishop Bancroft” (On the Revision, p. 7).  Tolbert Moore maintained that “the Anglican Archbishop, Richard Bancroft, was the supervisor in the translating of what we call the King James Bible” (The Eagle, Sept-Oct-Nov., 2013, p. 16).  Adam Nicolson suggested that Bancroft could see that “the church should take the initiative and mould the new Bible to its own purposes” (God’s Secretaries, p. 65).  Alfred Dewes maintained that the directions or rules given the translators “must sorely have hampered them” (Plea, p. 7).  James Woolsey wrote:  “In preparing his version, King James restricted the translators within certain bounds, which left them not at liberty to follow the plain import of certain words, nor the convictions of their own consciences; but obligated them to comply, not with a mandate proceeding from the throne of heaven, but with one coming from the throne of England” (Doctrine, p. 80).   

Wasn't he a Scott, Presbyterian in bias, and therefore leaning towards the Geneva, if anything?

King James I was raised as Presbyterian in Scotland, but he rejected his upbringing and embraced the Church of England when he became king over England.

King James I despised or hated the Geneva Bible, which he had read and used growing up.  One reason was the problems that the Geneva Bible caused for his divine right of kings' views or claims.

McGrath observed:  "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141).  Bernard Levinson and Joshua Berman pointed out that the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible “contained some interpretations that were sympathetic to the right of the oppressed to resist a tyrant, and that raised questions about ‘the divine right of kings’” (KJB at 400, p. 4).  In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out:  "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people:  his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i).  Gustavus Paine also noted:  "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne.  Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him:  they seemed to scoff at kings.  If the Bible threatened him, it must be  changed.  Away with all marginal notes!"  (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10).  Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).  In the introduction to a 1853 edition of the Bible by Benjamin Boothroyd, this is noted:  “What chiefly offended James and the high church party in this version [the Geneva Bible] were the notes, which indicated a strong but just sense of freedom” (p. xxi).   

    Pastor John Mincy affirmed:  "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131).  Ward Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people"  (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3).  KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206).  In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97).  Charles Buck also asserted that “King James bore it [the Geneva] an inveterate hatred, on account of the notes” (Theological Dictionary, p. 58).  Kenneth Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87).  Stephen Miller and Robert Huber affirmed that King James “hated the Geneva Bible” (The Bible, p. 178).  KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3).  Ronald Cammenga asserted that “the king objected to certain notes that he interpreted to deny the divine right of kings, notes that justified disobedience to the king under certain circumstances” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, Nov., 2011, p. 56).  The Local Preachers’ Magazine maintained that “King James disliked the notes of the Geneva Bible, because they were unfriendly to the despotic policy on which he acted after ascending the throne of England” (March, 1853, p. 112).  Alister McGrath wrote:  "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions.  It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).

Funny, I taught on the Nicolaitan vs Presbytery, did an indepth study on the Church at Ephesus, and came up with everything you are insisting here that the KJV doesn't properly convey....using only the text of the KJV.

Key is, that the sign of the receiving of spiritual gifts at the laying on of hands, is an Apostolic Sign, and not a church practice.

The subsequent presbytery were to be nominated by the membership, screened according to the Pauline admonishments in Tim and Titus, and elected by consensus of vote.
The same for deacons.



Anishinaabe

 

[subllibrm]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

From wikipedia:

Ebonics (a blend of the words ebony {black} and phonics) is a term that was originally intended to refer to the language of all people descended from enslaved Black Africans, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. Since the 1996 controversy over its use by the Oakland School Board, the term Ebonics has primarily been used to refer to African American Vernacular English (AAVE), a dialect distinctively different from Standard American English.

The word Ebonics was originally coined in 1973 by African American social psychologist Robert Williams[1] in a discussion with linguist Ernie Smith (as well as other language scholars and researchers) that took place in a conference on "Cognitive and Language Development of the Black Child", held in St. Louis, Missouri.[2][3] His intention was to give a name to the language of African Americans that acknowledged the linguistic consequence of the slave trade and avoided the negative connotations of other terms like "Nonstandard Negro English":

Merriam Webster:

Definition of EBONICS

:  black english

Do you dig' now? brace yo'self foo'!

 

[Green Beret]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

Yes, it is. Remember the old show the time tunnel? Reminds me a little of that.

 

[Bruh]

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

From wikipedia:

Ebonics (a blend of the words ebony {black} and phonics) is a term that was originally intended to refer to the language of all people descended from enslaved Black Africans, particularly in West Africa, the Caribbean, and North America. Since the 1996 controversy over its use by the Oakland School Board, the term Ebonics has primarily been used to refer to African American Vernacular English (AAVE), a dialect distinctively different from Standard American English.

The word Ebonics was originally coined in 1973 by African American social psychologist Robert Williams[1] in a discussion with linguist Ernie Smith (as well as other language scholars and researchers) that took place in a conference on "Cognitive and Language Development of the Black Child", held in St. Louis, Missouri.[2][3] His intention was to give a name to the language of African Americans that acknowledged the linguistic consequence of the slave trade and avoided the negative connotations of other terms like "Nonstandard Negro English":

Merriam Webster:

Definition of EBONICS

:  black english

Do you dig' now? brace yo'self foo'!

I'm smoken what you rollen.  8)

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

Yes, it is. Remember the old show the time tunnel? Reminds me a little of that.

Had to add a post. Curious as to when this thing will implode

 

[North]

William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). Carter acknowledged that "the Geneva Bible was hated by the Catholic Church" (Ibid.). Carter maintained that the Geneva Bible “came from the same source” as the KJV and that it is “trustworthy” (p. 121). Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Chester Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe, p. 566). Riplinger stated that the Geneva “follows the traditional text that underlies the King James Version” (Which Bible, p. 51). Riplinger described the English translation in the 1599 Nuremberg Polyglot which was the Geneva Bible as “pure” and as “the Bible before the KJV of 1611” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 41, 1048, 1052-1108). H. D. Williams identified the Geneva Bible as being “based on the Received Texts of the original languages of the Bible” (Word-for-Word, p. 238). D. A. Waite maintained that “the Geneva Bible (1557-60) used the Received Text” (Defending the KJB, p. 48). David Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams listed the Geneva Bible as a “literal, verbal plenary translation” (Word-for-Word, p. 121). Robert Sargent referred to it as “a very good translation” (English Bible, p. 197). Peter Ruckman included the Geneva Bible on his good tree that is described at the bottom of the page as “the one, true, infallible, God-breathed Bible” (Bible Babel, p. 82).

Other scholars and authors also speak highly of the Geneva Bible. Benson Bobrick maintained that the Geneva Bible "paid meticulous attention to the Greek and Hebrew originals" (Wide as the Waters, p. 175). Backus asserted that “their main Greek text for the New Testament was the 1550 text of Stephanus” (Reformed Roots, p. 13). The Geneva Bible translators could only consult the 1557 Latin New Testament of Beza since the second edition that included a Greek text had not yet been printed [1565]. Charles Butterworth noted: "The Geneva Bible is above all anxious to be accurate; it is clean-cut, honest, and straightforward; it is both scholarly and pious" (Literary Lineage, p. 236). Concerning the Geneva Bible, Glenn Conjurske asserted: “Accuracy was its main concern and its main characteristic” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 86). Ken Connolly suggested that the Geneva Bible translators "painstakingly worked over minute details of the text, giving a faithful translation and achieving agreement between all the collaborators" (Indestructible Book, p. 155). Kenneth Latourette wrote: “Embodying thorough scholarship, it also had an English style which delighted the rank and file of readers, was printed in Roman rather than black letters and in convenient style, and enjoyed a wide circulation” (History of Christianity, II, p. 817). David Daniell reported: “It was a masterpiece of Renaissance scholarship and printing, and Reformation Bible thoroughness” (Bible in English, p. 291). David Lawton asserted: “The Geneva Bible is a superb production in the tradition of Tyndale” (Faith, p. 64). Walter Scott wrote: “The Geneva Bible was the first complete translation into the English from the originals throughout” (Story of our English Bible, p. 153). John Kerr wrote: “With the Geneva we have a true ‘people’s Bible‘--written in vigorous English, exhibiting careful scholarship without sounding pedantic, and widely available” (Ancient Texts, p. 93). Frank Gaebelein observed: “Whittingham and his co-workers produced a translation of notable scholarship and beauty” (Story, p. 40). Raidabaugh asserted that “the men who prepared it were scholars acquainted with the original; and, though they derived assistance from other versions, did not follow any of them with servility” (History, p. 45). Blackford Condit maintained that “the language of the Geneva version is remarkable for its Saxon simplicity” (History, p. 252). Butterworth pointed out: "Broadly defined, the Geneva Bible was a sweeping revision of the text of the Great Bible in the Old Testament and a careful revision of the edition of 1557 in the New Testament" (Literary Lineage, p. 165). It was influenced by Olivetan’s French Bible. Backus maintained that “there is no doubt about the strong influence which the French Geneva Bible had on the text of the English Geneva” (Reformed Roots, p. 13).

In an appendix entitled “When and how we get our Bible,” a Sunday School Scholars’ Edition of the KJV stated that the Geneva Bible “is pre-eminently the Protestant Bible” (p. 6). Donald Brake maintained that “the Geneva Bible became the cornerstone of the Reformation” (Visual History, p. 150). In 1772, David Durell (Hebrew scholar and friend of Benjamin Blayney) maintained that “it [the KJV] does not exhibit in many places the sense of the text so exactly as the version of 1599 [the Geneva]“ (Critical Remarks on the Books, p. vi). In 1827, Baptist Samuel Green asserted that “some learned men speak highly of this copy [the Geneva] of the English Scriptures, and do not hesitate to declare, that it is at least equal to that of King James’s translators” (Miscellanies, p. 256).

The Geneva Bible is the source of many of the better and more accurate renderings in the KJV. Gerald Hammond maintained that “the Geneva Bible, not the Bishops’ Bible, became the foundation of the Authorized Version” (Making, p. 144). McAfee contended that “the Genevan version was most influential” in the making of the KJV (Greatest English, p. 62). Condit asserted that the Geneva Bible “makes the Authorized version what it is now” (History, p. 265). Leland Ryken maintained that the Geneva Bible “contributed more than any other version to the King James Bible of 1611” (Worldly Saints, p. 138). Butterworth wrote: “In the lineage of the King James Bible this volume [the Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume” (Literary Lineage, p. 163). The Cambridge History of the Bible observed that the “Geneva contributed clarity and precision” to the KJV (Vol. 3, p. 167). KJV-only author Jack Moorman noted that “many of its [the Geneva Bible’s] improvements, in phrase or in interpretation, were adopted in the Authorised Version” (Forever Settled, pp. 180-181).

The Geneva Bible was the word of God in English before the KJV ever existed. The Geneva Bible was also “able-to-make-thee-wise-unto-salvation” Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15) and “profitable-for-doctrine” Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16) before the KJV was ever printed. Many English speakers read the engrafted word which is able to save your souls (James 1:21) in the Geneva Bible. Believers could read, study, learn, memorize, preach, and live by the Geneva Bible, and they did. In their comments to the brethren of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible translators wrote: “Seeing the great opportunity and occasions, which God presented unto us in this church, by reason of so many godly and learned men and such diversities of translations in divers tongues, we undertook this great and wonderful work (with all reverence, as in the presence of God, as intreating the words of God, whereunto we think ourselves insufficient) which now God according to his divine providence and mercy hath directed to a most prosperous end. And this we may with good conscience protest, we have in every point and word, according to the measure of that knowledge which it pleased almighty God to give us, faithfully rendered the text, and in all hard places most sincerely expounded the same. For God is our witness that we have, by all means endeavored to set forth the purity of the word and right sense of the Holy Ghost for the edifying of the brethren in faith and charity.”

 

[T-Bone]

Two things, from that lengthy post...

1. If the Geneva and KJV are so much alike then I guess we didn't need the contemporary KJV.

2. Any post that uses Riplinger, Cloud& Ruckman as a source of authority is suspect to say the least!

 

[North]

I copied and pasted that post. It wasn't my words, just an interesting take. Here is another copy/paste written by the other side:

Textually speaking the Geneva Bible is far better than the modern, ever changing Critical Text versions like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV,NIV, TNIV, NET, and the middle of the road versions like the NKJV and the Holman Standard. However the Geneva Bible was and is not God's perfect Book and in His sovereignty it was placed on the shelf of virtual oblivion about 350 years ago.

No one I know of defends or believes the various Geneva Bibles to be the complete and infallible word of God, but many rightly do prefer it above such modern versions as the NASB, NIV and ESV.

Here are just a few examples showing the inferiority of the Geneva Bible as compared to the one God has been pleased in history to clearly establish as THE Bible of the English speaking people - the Authorized King James Bible.

The Geneva Bible has Elhanah killing Goliath, when most of today's Sunday school children know that it was David.

2 Sam 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. --KJB NKJV, TNIV, Hebrew Names Version, Young's, Lamsa's, 1936 Hebrew Pub. Company version, French Martin, Italian Diodati, Portuguese O Livro 2000, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible.

Geneva Bible - 2 Sam 21:19 "And there was yet another battel in Gob with the Philistims, where Elhanah the sonne of Iaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite SLEWE GOLIATH the Gittite: the staffe of whose speare was like a weauers beame." This even conflicts with the Geneva Bible itself when it tells us in 1 Chron. 20:4-5 that Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath.

For further discussion on who killed Goliath see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/2Sam21-19.html

Psalm 8:4-5 "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

It is quoted this way in the New Testament in all Bibles in Hebrews 2:6-8, including the Geneva Bible, and reads this way in Psalm 8:5 in all Jewish translations 1917 JPS, 1936 Hebrew Pub. Com., Judaica Press Tanach, Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the NKJV, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, New Life Bible, Living Bible, Douay, New American Bible, New Century Version, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, the Italian Diodati 1649, French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, the Biblia de Las Americas 1997 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that does the contradictory NASB), the Portuguese O Livro 2000.

Not even the NIV, TNIV, NET and ESV go as far afield in their translations, telling us that God has made man "a little lower than THE HEAVENLY BEINGS."

However the Geneva Bible tells us: "For thou hast made him a little lower THAN GOD, and crowned him with glory and WORSHIP." This is similar to the NASB that says God has "made him a little lower than GOD, and crowned him with glory and majesty."

The blasphemous Message even says: "We've so narrowly missed being gods, bright with Eden's dawn light."

Deuteronomy 32:5

This is part of the song of Moses which says in verses 3-5: "I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. They have corrupted themselves, THEIR SPOT IS NOT THE SPOT OF HIS CHILDREN: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"

If you look at the context, in the previous chapter God told Moses that the people would enter the promised land and would go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land and turn to other gods.

God knew this before He brought them into the land, so their entering the land did not depend on their foreseen obedience to the law, but rather because of the covenant of grace made with Abraham.

They are still His children whom He bought (verse 6) , His people and His inheritance (verse 9) and verse 19 still refers to them as "his sons and daughters". They are His children even though disobedient, just as your child is still your child no matter what he does.

Other versions that agree with the King James Bible in Deuteronomy 32:5 in teaching they are still His children are Darby, Youngs, Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, the Hebrew-English JPS translation of 1917, Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible.

The Judaica Press Tanach 2001 reads this portion as: "it is His children's defect you crooked and twisted generation." They are still His children. The modern Complete Jewish Bible agrees that the children of Israel are still the children of God, saying: ""He is not corrupt; the defect is in his children, a crooked and perverted generation."

The Spanish Reina Valera versions 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995 all clearly say that they are His children, even though they have the stain of sin. "La corrupción no es suya; de sus hijos es la mancha, generación torcida y perversa." Translation- "Corruption is not His; of His children is the stain, a twisted and perverse generation."

The 1917 Jewish Publication Society reads differently but retains the correct meaning saying: "Just and Right is He. Is corruption His? No; His children's is the blemish."

The Geneva Bible is generally much better than most modern versions, but it does have its faults, and here is one of them. The Geneva Bible also tells us that the children of Israel were NOT His children, and this again contradicts with the very next verse, even in the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible reads: "They haue corrupted them selues towarde him by their vice, NOT BEING HIS CHILDREN, but a frowarde and crooked generation."

For further discussion of this verse and the theology behind it, please see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/gracdes.html

Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting versions. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

However the Geneva Bible misses the whole point and says: "After threescore and two weekes shall Messiah be slaine, AND SHALL HAVE NOTHING."

While here in Daniel, let's look at a couple other passages that have an inferior translation to that of the King James Bible.

In Daniel 2:13 we are told: "And the decree went forth that the wise men SHOULD BE SLAIN: and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain." The rest of the story tells us that Daniel stepped in and the lives of the other wise men were spared. Verse 24 tells us that Daniel went in and said: "Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation." However the Geneva Bible creates a contradiction by telling us: "And when the sentence was given, THE WISE MEN WERE SLAINE".

The Geneva Bible also has a unique verse numbering system. In the KJB Daniel chapter three ends with 3:30. However the Geneva bible goes all the way to 3:33 and then starts chapter four three verses later, where the KJB and all other bibles place these verses in chapter four.

So, when we read the KJB chapter 4:27 it is 4:24 in the Geneva bible. The verse says: "Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; IT MAY BE A LENGTHENING OF THY TRANQUILITY." (Coverdale, RV, ASV, RSV, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, Hebrew Names Version = KJB. Some modern versions like NKJV, NIV, NASB say "that there may be a lengthening of your prosperity".)

But the Geneva says: "...thine iniquities by mercie towards the poore; loe, LET THERE BE A HEALING OF THINE ERROUR."

Daniel 7:25 KJB - speaking of the antichrist in the last days - "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall WEAR OUT the saints of the most High..."

But the Geneva says the opposite with: "And shall speak words against the most High, and shall CONFIRM the saints of the most High."

Again the Geneva says the opposite of the KJB and most other Bibles in Daniel 8:23. Here we read: "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors ARE COME TO THE FULL, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up." (Bishops, Wycliffe, Coverdale, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV all agree that wickedness and transgressors have reach their full strength.)

However the Geneva bible says: "And in the end of their kingdom, when the rebellious SHALL BE CONSUMED, a King of fierce countenance...."

The following is a list of various translations I have found within the Geneva Bible that are inferior to the King James Holy Bible. These are among the reasons God has seen fit to replace this older English bible with the greatest masterpiece in English literature.

Deuteronomy 23:17 KJB - "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor A SODOMITE of the sons of Israel."

Geneva - "There shalbe no whore of the daughters of Israel, neither shal there be A WHORE KEEPER of the sonnes of Israel."

Deuteronomy 28:54 KJB - "So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, HIS EYE SHALL BE EVIL TOWARD his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom..."

Geneva - "So that the man (that is tender and exceeding deintie among you) SHALL BE GRIEVED at his brother, and at his wife, that lieth in his bosome..."

Deuteronomy 33:3 - KJB - "Yea, he loved the people; all HIS saints are in THY hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words. "

Geneva Bible - "Though hee loue the people, yet all THY Saints are in thine handes: and they are humbled at thy foete, to receiue thy words."

The Hebrew texts read "all HIS saints", not "all THY saints". (See RV, ASV, 1917 JPS, NKJV, Coverdale, Bishops' bible)

Joshua 19:2 - KJB Here there are 13 cities listed (see verse 6) and the KJB correctly reads: "And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, OR Sheba, and Moladah,..."

But the Geneva lists 14 cities and then calls this 13 cities in verse 6. "Nowe they had in their inheritance, Beersheba, AND Sheba, and Moladah...thirteen cities."

Judges 5:10 - KJB "Speak, ye that ride on white asses, YE THAT SIT IN JUDGMENT, and walk by the way."

Geneva - "Speake ye that ride on white asses, YE THAT DWELL IN MIDDIN, & that walke by the way."

Job 11:6 KJB - "And that he would shew thee the secrets of wisdom, that they are double to that which is! Know therefore that GOD EXACTETH OF THEE LESS THAN THINE INIQUITY DESERVETH."

Geneva - "That he might shewe thee the secretes of wisedome, howe thou hast deserued double, according to right: know therefore that GOD HATH FORGOTTEN THEE FOR THINE INIQUITIE."

Job 13:15 KJB - "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will MAINTAIN mine own ways before him."

The Geneva says the opposite with: "Loe, though he slay me, yet will I trust in him, and I will REPROVE my wayes in his sight."

Job 15:2 - KJB - "Shall a wise man utter VAIN KNOWLEDGE, and fill his belly with the east wind?"

Geneva - "Shall a wise man speak WORDS OF THE WIND...?"

Job 16:20 - KJB - "My friends SCORN ME: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God."

Geneva - "My friends SPEAK ELOQUENTLY against me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God."

Job 20:10 - KJB - "His children shall SEEK TO PLEASE the poor..."

Geneva - "His children shall FLATTER the poor..."

Job 22:15 - KJB - "Hast thou marked THE OLD WAY which wicked men have trodden?"

Geneva - "Hast thou marked THE WAY OF THE WORLDE, wherein wicked men haue walked? "

Job 22:30 KJB - "HE shall deliver the ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands.

Geneva bible - "THE INNOCENT SHALL DELIVER THE ISLAND, & it shalbe preserued by the purenes of thine hands."

Job 34:31 - KJB - "Surely it is meet TO BE SAID UNTO GOD, I HAVE BORNE CHASTISEMENT, I WILL NOT OFFEND ANY MORE."

Geneva is completely different with: - "Surely it appertaineth UNTO GOD TO SAY, I HAVE PARDONED, I WILL NOT DESTROY."

Job 35:15 - KJB - "But now, because it is not so, HE HATH VISISTED IN HIS ANGER; yet he knoweth it not in great extremity."

Geveva is opposite, and the last part confused with: "But nowe because HIS ANGER HATH NOT VISITED, nor called to count the euill with great extremitie."

Job 41:22 - KJB speaking of leviathan - "In his neck remaineth strength, and SORROW IS TURNED INTO JOY BEFORE HIM. "

Geneva - "In his necke remayneth strength, & LABOUR IS REJECTED BEFORE HIS FACE."

Proverbs 2:7 - KJB - "He layeth up SOUND WISDOM for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. "

Geneva - "He preserueth THE STATE OF the righteous: he is a shielde to them that walke vprightly."

Proverbs 21:4 - KJB - "An high look, and a proud heart, and the PLOWING of the wicked, is sin.

Geneva - "A hautie looke, and a proude heart, WHICH IS THE LIGHT of the wicked, is sinne."

Proverbs 22:20 - KJB - "Have not I written to thee EXCELLENT THINGS in counsels and knowledge."

Geneva - "Haue not I written vnto thee THREE TIMES in counsels and knowledge."

Proverbs 26:7 - KJB - "THE LEGS OF THE LAME ARE NOT EQUAL: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.

Geneva - "AS THEY THAT LIFT UP THE LEGS OF THE LAME, so is a parable in a fooles mouth."

Song of Solomon 3:9 - KJB - "King Solomon made himself a CHARIOT OF WOOD of Lebanon."

Geneva - "King Solomon makd himself A PALACE OF THE TREES of Lebanon."

Song of Solomon 7:9 - KJB - "...causing the lips of THOSE THAT ARE ASLEEP to speak."

Geneva - "and causeth the lips OF THE ANCIENT to speak."

Isaiah 49:17 - KJB and the Hebrew Masoretic texts read: "Thy CHILDREN shall make haste; thy destroyers and they that made thee waste shall go forth of thee." (RV, ASV, NKJV, 1917 JPS)

Geneva, following the Vulgate, and DSS reads: "Thy BUILDERS make haste: thy destroiers and they that made thee waste, are departed from thee. "

Ezekiel 19:7 - KJB - "And he knew their DESOLATE PALACES, and he laid waste their cities"

Geneva - "And he knew their WIDOWES, & he destroyed their cities"

Zechariah 9:6 - KJB - "And A BASTARD shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. "

Geneva - "And THE STRANGER shal dwell in Ashdod, and I wil cut off the pride of the Philistims."

Romans 3:27 - KJB - "Where is BOASTING then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. "

This is a case of a really bad translation by the Geneva. The whole point of the argument is that man cannot BOAST by keeping the works of the law. "Boasting" is the reading found in Wycliffe, Bishops', RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Young's, Darby and many others.

Geneva - "Where is then THE REJOICING? It is excluded. By what Lawe? of woorkes? Nay: but by the Lawe of faith.

These are just a few of the numerous places where the Geneva Bible is not as good as the King James Bible. Lord willing, when I have more time I will continue to add to this growing list of examples.

 

[Ransom]

The Geneva Bible has Elhanah killing Goliath, when most of today's Sunday school children know that it was David.

You do realize that there's a perfectly understandable explanation for that, right? No Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 21:19 contains the words translated "the brother of." The Geneva Bible is simply translating the text faithfully, as it exists. When the KJV says "the brother of Goliath," it is adding those words to the text. Funny how KJV-onlyists normally seem to think adding to the word of God is bad, if it's a modern not-the-KJV Bible doing it, but unless it's the KJV trying to harmonize two parallel readings.

If it weren't for double standards, the KJV-onlyists would have no standards at all.

In any case, no one who read the stories of the defeat of Goliath and Lahmi, "brother of" or not, would understand them to be contradictions if they are read with even minimal care. They are obviously two different stories, separated by several decades of time and several miles of distance.

 

[T-Bone]

And if you are going to quote...give clear credit to the person you are quoting.

 

[North]

Oh, yes I will do that, my apologies.

 

[Green Beret]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

Yes, it is. Remember the old show the time tunnel? Reminds me a little of that.

Had to add a post. Curious as to when this thing will implode

I'm curious too, so I had to add one more

 

[subllibrm]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

"Victory In Jesus" is one of my favorite songs.

 

[subllibrm]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

Yes, it is. Remember the old show the time tunnel? Reminds me a little of that.

Had to add a post. Curious as to when this thing will implode

I'm curious too, so I had to add one more

How long do you suppose it will be before admin makes us knock it off?

 

[Green Beret]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

"Victory In Jesus" is one of my favorite songs.

Mine too since the name of our church is Victory Baptist! And, if we are going to implode this nested quote test, we need to respond to the most recent one or else we will lose our progress. Keep with the program, brother! 

 

[Green Beret]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

Yes, it is. Remember the old show the time tunnel? Reminds me a little of that.

Had to add a post. Curious as to when this thing will implode

I'm curious too, so I had to add one more

How long do you suppose it will be before admin makes us knock it off?

Don't know....let's find out.

 

[lnf]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

Yes, it is. Remember the old show the time tunnel? Reminds me a little of that.

Had to add a post. Curious as to when this thing will implode

I'm curious too, so I had to add one more

How long do you suppose it will be before admin makes us knock it off?

Don't know....let's find out.

Well, I don't know about admin, but you peeps have taken these quotes past the normal screen size.  I now have to use the horizontal scroll bar to see everything.  So I vote for "knock it off!"

LOL  ;D 8) ??? : :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(  LOL

 

[Green Beret]

The other versions are easier to read............our society has been dumb down to a degree that is shameful.  Most born again people no longer bring a babe in Christ up to the the standard of the Bible, instead they dumb down Christianity as a whole.

Clearly you haven't read all the other versions...NRSV and NASB are on the same level as the KJV...you won't admit it, but the issue has nothing to do with a grade level of the reading material, but with the language that is used today, even in the intellectual community...and it is not the King's English.

Yes, you have underscored my point very well.  Thank you!

What a gay response!

Now the question is what "gay" means...after all, the definition has changed in just a four hundred years few decades.

How about print one in the Ebonics and distribute to the R&B crowd..........yeah, that makes perfect..................whatever!! LOL

Interesting example you would selected there....

...and, for the record, I love the Cottonpatch Bible.

It is just a little more than curious that he would jump to the "race" card.  I bet he thinks drums in the church came from the African pagans!!!  ROFL!

I didn't realize that Ebonics was for African Americans only?

Liar!  You had nothing white in your mind when you made your statement!

Wow, you must've came from the Hyles side of the IFB?  Still judging others motives, huh?

LOL...you make me laugh... Me , Hyles side bwhahaha... Me IFB bwhahaha! No one is judging your motives, just your words...you chose them!

I just wanted to include another nested quote.

One more.

And another! How many nested quotes will it handle?

One more?

Yup

And another?

Love the smell of a nested quote in the morning!

Smells like....VICTORY!

It's starting to look like an infinity tunnel!

Yes, it is. Remember the old show the time tunnel? Reminds me a little of that.

Had to add a post. Curious as to when this thing will implode

I'm curious too, so I had to add one more

How long do you suppose it will be before admin makes us knock it off?

Don't know....let's find out.

Well, I don't know about admin, but you peeps have taken these quotes past the normal screen size.  I now have to use the horizontal scroll bar to see everything.  So I vote for "knock it off!"

LOL  ;D 8) ??? : :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(  LOL

I have a wide screen so I vote for another post...