[garcia]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

yeah, I know is a different day, i saying some believe what scientist say about dinosaurs live in a different time then man. yes there referring to creatures of the sea including sea dinos.

[Pastor William Nathaniel Sampson]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Thank I will read it, I commenting on the the things i know know, I am still growing AMEN but what I am trying to say is that there is some errors in the King James Version not somthing so big that will effect the hole bible. for example Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth. In the Hebrew bible it does not say Created great whales (they can be included) its "the Monsters" this makes some people not think that dinosaurs where created with man.

That is clearly referring to creatures of the sea and that is the day before man is created.

[garcia]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Thank I will read it, I commenting on the the things i know know, I am still growing AMEN but what I am trying to say is that there is some errors in the King James Version not somthing so big that will effect the hole bible. for example Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth. In the Hebrew bible it does not say Created great whales (they can be included) its "the Monsters" this makes some people not think that dinosaurs where created with man.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

I did not claim Gods was weak to preserve his word sorry did mean it that. I know you used it as an example but i don't believe in gay marriage. I meant to say is that the men who was inspired to write the bible wrote it in Hebrew and Greek. And that people make it seem as if the people that were inspired wrote the king James version. almost all the bible gives the same message that our God left to us. Amen

Wrong. The King James Bible IS inspired!

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp

You can read all about it there.

[garcia]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

I did not claim Gods was weak to preserve his word sorry did mean it that. I know you used it as an example but i don't believe in gay marriage. I meant to say is that the men who was inspired to write the bible wrote it in Hebrew and Greek. And that people make it seem as if the people that were inspired wrote the king James version. almost all the bible gives the same message that our God left to us. Amen

[Pastor William Nathaniel Sampson]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

our English translation of the bible is not inspired the Hebrew and Greek bible are.

How dare you claim God is too weak to preserve His words to man.

Amen so it does not really matter what English version you prefer or like. let the holy spirit guide you and you will find the truth. Amen.

People get into all sorts of trouble doing that. Take gay marriage for example. The Bible says it's wrong. Some liberal "Christians" claim that the Holy Spirit led them to believe it's okay and we should accept the queers.

I prayed and the Holy Spirit told me that it is disgusting and wrong. Obviously only one of is truly being led by the Spirit and that is me.

[garcia]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

our English translation of the bible is not inspired the Hebrew and Greek bible are. Amen so it does not really matter what English version you prefer or like. let the holy spirit guide you and you will find the truth. Amen.

[True Disciple]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Which part of "shall we now stop bickering about this" did you not get?

The KJV1611 Holy Bible is 100% perfect, let's please keep it at that.

I'm sorry, Brother. I think I was a little confused, and a false Christian was mocking us on this thread, so I thought: "well, maybe we should sort this out."
Eskimo activity seems to have decreased somewhat, after all.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Which part of "shall we now stop bickering about this" did you not get?

The KJV1611 Holy Bible is 100% perfect, let's please keep it at that.

[True Disciple]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

"Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adulteress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible"

"I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that most scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is true, just not put there by John."

Brother Basher, I'm nothing short of shocked! There are few people whom I hold in such high regard on Biblical Issues as you.
Could you please direct me to these scholars? I always supposed that the Bible didn't change since it was written in 1611.

[Godfly]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Which proves the point I made before that even though it perhaps is missing from the original scripture the Holy Spirit clearly guided us to get it in the KJV1611 Holy Bible. Probably some evil person tried to twist the Bible by stealing some pages but our Almighty LORD just fixed that on the spot. Praise Jesus.

Shall we now stop bickering about this and relax a bit with our 100% perfect KJV1611 Holy Bibles? We have evil Icelanders to deal with.

AMEN!

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

also believe that it's likely that the account is true, just not put there by John

Which proves the point I made before that even though it perhaps is missing from the original scripture the Holy Spirit clearly guided us to get it in the KJV1611 Holy Bible. Probably some evil person tried to twist the Bible by stealing some pages but our Almighty LORD just fixed that on the spot. Praise Jesus.

Shall we now stop bickering about this and relax a bit with our 100% perfect KJV1611 Holy Bibles? We have evil Icelanders to deal with.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Ah yes. Let's now subtract the parts of the Bible that are inconvenient to your right wing views.

Luther tried the same thing with the book of James because he found he couldn't reconcile it with the Pauline letters.

I see how it is with you fundies now.
And you always accuse us of ignoring the parts we don't like.

"I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that most scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is true, just not put there by John."

[Samuel Coleridge]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

No, no, Sister. Mark 16:9-20 were ALWAYS a part of the Bible, in 90% of all early manuscripts.

John 8:1-11, on the other hand, is ABSENT from 90% of all early manuscripts.

Ah yes. Let's now subtract the parts of the Bible that are inconvenient to your right wing views.

Luther tried the same thing with the book of James because he found he couldn't reconcile it with the Pauline letters.

I see how it is with you fundies now.
And you always accuse us of ignoring the parts we don't like.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, it looks like my earlier post about catholicism wasn't far of the mark.

I've seen that claim, it is wrong. The Bible is not liberal or atheistic. Even the specific verses you want to remove features Jesus Himself, how is that atheist? What's liberal about denying rights to unbelievers as those verses command us to do?

Just look at yourself, you are not answering any of the questions I have for you, nor do you submit to the wise guidance of the Pastor, nor are your claims backed up by Scripture, all you have in support of your theories is some crackpot commenters on a wacky liberal site. None of the commenters there is God. Do you have any idea how much your behavior looks like the behavior of the countless heathen drones that invade this Godly site every day? If it wasn't so sad it would be funny...

"Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adulteress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible"