Celebrations

[Aruntraveller]

Truth is you cannot prove me wrong. That is the element you within yourself cannot escape or deny. The same words you use now is something you need to think carefully about. On the day the Lord returns you will be held accountable for them..

Oh dear Jim - you've been 'Sassed'.

That's the same as being Tango'ed - but without the frisson of pleasure you get remembering adverts from bygone days.

[Anchorman]

Oh dear Jim - you've been 'Sassed'.

That's the same as being Tango'ed - but without the frisson of pleasure you get remembering adverts from bygone days.

If that's being Sassed, I prefer Irn Bru.

[Anchorman]

You know, Sass, I've tried quite successfully to fall asleep during meetings when folk spout Jacobean language and , as the LORd put it, babble like pagans (sorry, pagans!) in gobbledegook or language that's supposed to impress. It does no such thing. I well remember a prayer seesion when several ministers and elders were joining in praise - on Iona. Minister after minister thundered out antiquated prose such as "Oh Lord, Thy prais manifesteth itself on our lips as THou dost command us to sanctify this time with words of worship" And similar stuff, proving at least that the prayer's teeth were in place if nothing else. Then a minister stood up - a great friend of mine - looked to the sea, and said....."Lord; You're magic" Amen" Yes, it was colloquial. Yes, it lacked Jacobean flummery. But, hey, it did the job. Try it.

[Sassy]

You know, Sass, I've tried quite successfully to fall asleep during meetings when folk spout Jacobean language and , as the LORd put it, babble like pagans (sorry, pagans!) in gobbledegook or language that's supposed to impress. It does no such thing. I well remember a prayer seesion when several ministers and elders were joining in praise - on Iona. Minister after minister thundered out antiquated prose such as "Oh Lord, Thy prais manifesteth itself on our lips as THou dost command us to sanctify this time with words of worship" And similar stuff, proving at least that the prayer's teeth were in place if nothing else. Then a minister stood up - a great friend of mine - looked to the sea, and said....."Lord; You're magic" Amen" Yes, it was colloquial. Yes, it lacked Jacobean flummery. But, hey, it did the job. Try it.

What I wrote is getting to you. You realised that God is going to stop using you.
Well! that is your own doing for thinking you know better than God. Just as you judge people by the outer things of human nature and not the truth Christ taught.

People do not speak in Jacobean and as for pagan be careful remember what Christ warned you about when someone lied about the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy isn't forgiven
If you pass over Gods truth, it is lost on you whatever language or style it is spoken in.

It is quite obvious you feel you have to edify yourself in front of those here.
But I have no problem with what you write, because I am secure in the truth of Christ. Nothing moves me which you write. I am sure you feel you are somehow more learned and spiritual in the ways of God and Jesus Christ our Saviour.  But Christ chose fishermen not the priests in the Temple. Your position is no greater than anyone else who believes.

The LORD can tear down anything you write. But in truth you cannot tear down anything he reveals through his word which I write here. You could ask yourself "Why is that?"

I am not here to argue, it is,what it is. You do not represent the truth because you disregard and deny what God himself has revealed.

[Brownie]

You know, Sass, I've tried quite successfully to fall asleep during meetings when folk spout Jacobean language and , as the LORd put it, babble like pagans (sorry, pagans!) in gobbledegook or language that's supposed to impress. It does no such thing. I well remember a prayer seesion when several ministers and elders were joining in praise - on Iona. Minister after minister thundered out antiquated prose such as "Oh Lord, Thy prais manifesteth itself on our lips as THou dost command us to sanctify this time with words of worship" And similar stuff, proving at least that the prayer's teeth were in place if nothing else. Then a minister stood up - a great friend of mine - looked to the sea, and said....."Lord; You're magic" Amen" Yes, it was colloquial. Yes, it lacked Jacobean flummery. But, hey, it did the job. Try it.

I am just wondering Anchorman, because you must be at least as intelligent as me, how it is you find Sassy's posts incomprehensible when I, on the whole, find them quite understandable?  There was a time when I found them difficult but now think I didn't read them properly because I mentally switched off.  It doesn't help our comprehension if we automatically put up a barrier before reading something.  We don't have to agree with their views  but the least we can do for our fellow posters is read their posts with an open mind and not mock. The alternative is to say nothing. That's common courtesy.

[Hope]

I am just wondering Anchorman, because you must be at least as intelligent as me, how it is you find Sassy's posts incomprehensible when I, on the whole, find them quite understandable?  There was a time when I found them difficult but I now think I didn't read them properly because I mentally switched off;  it doesn't help our comprehension if we automatically put up a barrier before reading something.

Brownie, I think one of the problems is that Sass insists on using a form of English - both in her quotes and sometimes in her commentary on those quotes - that very few of us use nowadays.  Somehow she seems to believe that the Bible was written in Shakespearean English rather than translated into it some years after it was first translated into English and that since then, the English language has developed resulting in the meanings of many words changing, sometimes even doing a 180^o change.  As a result, she often argues in a way that is effectively denying the very point she is trying to make.

[Brownie]

There are plenty of posts not written in Jacobean English which are difficult to understand but no-one scoffs at them.  I've not seen any Jacobean on this thread unless you are talking about KJV quotes.

However, getting back to the point of the thread, I was thinking there must be many same sex heterosexual people who share property for years, ergo there is no reason why they should not have civil partnerships in order to protect eachother's inheritance.  Not unusual for two long term friends to want to do that.  I doubt many would at this time because of the association between civils and gay partnerships - which I am not knocking because it was perfectly natural for gay couples to rejoice in and take advantage of them - but now gay couples can marry.  Civil partnerships are not marriage, so it seems logical to me that two heterosexual friends of the same sex should take the plunge, especially if they have no-one else to inherit. It doesn't 'knock' the status of marriage because it is quite different.  If a civil partnership is dissolved for whatever reason, neither party will be a divorced person.
(The above could already be happening of course and I just haven't heard of it but most people would assume the couple to be gay which could be difficult if either wanted a relationship with a member of the opposite sex one day.)

[torridon]

Bit late in the day for copycats of the real faith and God to ever think they can be taken seriously. If anything the Qu'ran serves to make people think that all religion is man made but I believe the serious contention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through to Jesus Christ has been established in many of the things foretold coming to pass.

We are still waiting for anything to happen with the other aren't we.

You mean like christians are still waiting for Jesus to return, 2000 years on ?

[Anchorman]

Brownie; Gentle mockery is no crime - the Lord used it a lot in the NT! As for marriage - I was simply pointing out that legalised marriage existed long before the Pentateuch was written - or indeed edited. I have no issues whatsoever with gay or straight civil partnerships or secular marriage. Christian marriage, though, can only be between one man and one woman. And language? Sorry, Brownie, but resorting to Jacobean English really sets my teeth on edge! I should use the term 'pre-Jacobean' English, of course, as much of the KJV was simply lifted from the pre-existing (and better) Geneva Bible with some nice flummery and tweaking by James VI himself. While the language is majestic, the translation is poor, and the version incomprehensible to those not versed in the tongue. When the NT was written, the Koine was the lingua franca of the day, familiar as 'common' rather than'high' Greek. Similarly, when we try to communicate the Gospel in the twenty first century, we should do so in a language which is easy to understand. The KJV, sadly, isnot.

[Brownie]

I get what you say but am not sure about the word, "Should".  Though I generally use modern translations I don't have a problem with the KJV, actually love the language and I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a scholar.  Fair enough that not everyone feels the same way, the NIV is far easier - but to dismiss the KJV as if it is incomprehensible is ridiculous because it's not that difficult for someone who is sufficiently interested.  This is coming from someone who often gets hold of the wrong end of the stick when something is described in modern language!  With Biblical passages we start off knowing where we are coming from;  if we don't grasp something, there's no need to hold back from asking questions because that's the usual thing when it comes to study (no red faces).  It also opens up a subject for discussion.

Nevertheless I don't believe it's right for anyone to insist on a particular translation of the Bible, we're not studying for formal exams.

Phew, we've certainly gone off the subject of civil partnerships!  Quite civilly as it happens.

[Anchorman]

There's the issue, though. If weare attempting to convey Gospel truths, shouldn't we use a translation which is both accurate and easy to read? Jacobean English, whilst poetic, is not easy to understand if you're not used to it, and the translation itself is far from accurate by modern standards. I've used it in services such as funerals where the surviving relatives were familiar with it as children decades ago - but for normal personal study, or, more importantly, Sunday services, I'll use a modern translation -or even a paraphrase - which fits the tone of my service. For example, on Sunday morning, I'll use the Lorimer New Testament in Scots and the brilliant Glasgow Bible paraphrase by Jamie Stuart - I know the folk I'll be working with, and I also know the version which will reach them!

[Brownie]

I composed a long reply to your above post, Anchor - and lost it.  I was left with a mere comma  !  Felt so tired this afternoon I couldn't be asked to recreate it but I'll try now.

On the whole I agree with what you say, the NIV is the Bible I generally favour and have done for years.  I didn't grow up with the KJV, came to appreciate it in later life but I like that sort of thing;  different strokes etc.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't hurt to make an effort to understand more difficult quotations because, if we do, we gain insight;  we usually try to get our heads around posts, not always successfully, when they are complicated in other ways so why not quaint language.  It's not as if we encounter it that often.  We'd do it willingly enough if we were studying Shakespeare or Chaucer, it isn't actually that difficult if we are sufficiently interested.

Sass and I part company when it comes to her apparent belief that the Authorised is the only translation worth consideration and I've said as much on a few occasions.  That's a point of view I don't understand and can see how it gets on a few nerves but I accept it. It seems to me there are far more important things to be worried (or even niggled) about.

[Sebastian Toe]

Almighty, and most merciful heavenly Father, please put an end to the work he does till he stops mocking the truth of Genesis and that every word from your mouth is reliable and truth. In Jesus Name. Amen.

Has it worked yet, your 'request'? 

[Aruntraveller]

I am just wondering Anchorman, because you must be at least as intelligent as me, how it is you find Sassy's posts incomprehensible when I, on the whole, find them quite understandable

If this is the case Brownie can I suggest you offer your services as a translator to the board , because I, with Anchorman, struggle to understand clearly what Sass is on about quite often.

I'd be willing to chip in with a small amount for services rendered.

[Anchorman]

S'alright, TV; At least Sass, for one, knows what she's on about. Even when nobody else does.

[floo]

Maybe Sass is an alien which is why it is difficult for us mere humans to understand what the heck she is on about!

[Sassy]

Has it worked yet, your 'request'? 

God usually has three answers they are 'YES', 'NO' and 'WAIT'.  He will give the person time to look over their life and repent.
They can repent and so no action taken. They can proceed and eventually their own pride will be their downfall.

But if a person denies the truth that every word of God is to be lived by, do they honour God by saying something in the bible isn't true?

God did not have to tell Moses made up stories. Because God was there when he created Adam and Eve. Moses spoke with God himself and he knew his presence with him and the Children of Israel.

It would all go to the foolish knowledge wouldn't it? Where people cannot grasp the simple truth because it all seems to easy.
Men want difficult things to understand even things they pretend to understand. What most people don't want is truth however simple that truth may be. Is it any surprise that some calling themselves Christian think their position in life makes them unable to make mistakes?  The Words of God through the Prophets given by the Holy Spirit in the OT are truth.
Because God is not a liar he cannot lie, the Holy Spirit is truth so would never tell a lie. Moses spoke with God and wrote down what he told him to write.

All things in God are received with the understanding of who God is. It is not if we believe something possible but the truth is with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.  We cannot accept Gods words without accepting and looking at the person who spoke them..GOD.

He (Anchorman) has his chance to ponder on these things and his choices then will decide his future.

[Walter]

Sassy

I presume you are not a fool, so why do you believe all this nonsense.

[floo]

God usually has three answers they are 'YES', 'NO' and 'WAIT'.  He will give the person time to look over their life and repent.
They can repent and so no action taken. They can proceed and eventually their own pride will be their downfall.

But if a person denies the truth that every word of God is to be lived by, do they honour God by saying something in the bible isn't true?

God did not have to tell Moses made up stories. Because God was there when he created Adam and Eve. Moses spoke with God himself and he knew his presence with him and the Children of Israel.

It would all go to the foolish knowledge wouldn't it? Where people cannot grasp the simple truth because it all seems to easy.
Men want difficult things to understand even things they pretend to understand. What most people don't want is truth however simple that truth may be. Is it any surprise that some calling themselves Christian think their position in life makes them unable to make mistakes?  The Words of God through the Prophets given by the Holy Spirit in the OT are truth.
Because God is not a liar he cannot lie, the Holy Spirit is truth so would never tell a lie. Moses spoke with God and wrote down what he told him to write.

All things in God are received with the understanding of who God is. It is not if we believe something possible but the truth is with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.  We cannot accept Gods words without accepting and looking at the person who spoke them..GOD.

He (Anchorman) has his chance to ponder on these things and his choices then will decide his future.

The Gospel according to Sass!

[Humph Warden Bennett]

All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.

In the noughties the Isle of Man struck Elvis 50 pence coins, they were legal too.

As far as I am concerned, you either throw your lot in with somebody else & make a go of it together (marriage), or you play at being grown ups.

[Hope]

Maybe Sass is an alien which is why it is difficult for us mere humans to understand what the heck she is on about!

Perhaps you and some oythers are the aliens, Floo, explaining why we mere humans can't understand where you're coming from

Sass isn't the easiest to understand, but some of the tripe that others come up with, even when they've had chapter and verse (not to mention dictionary and etymology explanations) why their arguments can't work get me flummoxed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the noughties the Isle of Man struck Elvis 50 pence coins,

If you carry a load of those in your pocket they end up ''All shook up''.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

If you carry a load of those in your pocket they end up ''All shook up''.

Boom Boom

[floo]

Perhaps you and some oythers are the aliens, Floo, explaining why we mere humans can't understand where you're coming from

Sass isn't the easiest to understand, but some of the tripe that others come up with, even when they've had chapter and verse (not to mention dictionary and etymology explanations) why their arguments can't work get me flummoxed.

Hope as I have said many times, your posts don't provide any evidence to support your version of Christianity, they are all assertions. You ask non believers to provide evidence god doesn't exist, but that is like providing evidence that fairies don't exist. The default position must be disbelief until the less than credible, like the existence of the Bible deity, is proved to be a fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope as I have said many times, your posts don't provide any evidence to support your version of Christianity, they are all assertions. You ask non believers to provide evidence god doesn't exist, but that is like providing evidence that fairies don't exist. The default position must be disbelief until the less than credible, like the existence of the Bible deity, is proved to be a fact.

Floo.....we all have a large intellectual capacity to entertain ideas and not committing to them. I'm afraid antitheists and atheists around here are afraid to entertain ideas for fear of getting drawn in and having to make a commitment. In fact when it comes down to it you come across as guys and gals who are frightened that a bit of alternative contemplation will mean and end to a nice mornings hoovering or a trip to the end of the road to get a paper.