[geocentrism] Re: KJV, apocrypha
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:11:30 -0600
Cheryl,
You seem to give post-Christ "Jews" great and final authority to
determine what is in the canon of the OT (relating to the apocrypha).
You have to admit at least that there is a difference of opinion. This
being the case, why would you place any weight on the group of persons
(referred to as Jews) which couldn't see things straight enough to
accept Christ (and which failed to understand what is in the OT which
identified that Jesus Christ is the Messiah) and who also reject the
entire NT. They have no credibility in the matter (and their motivations
are suspect, which impacts their believability), not to mention the fact
that the real Bible believing Jews which have credibility in
interpreting the OT (and what is in it) became Christians (leaving
behind those who wrongfully claimed to adhere to the OT, who adopted a
new Jewish faith, who we today refer to as Jews).
The whole question of what is in the Bible is critical to the geostatic
question (and the theological and moral implications of the geostatic
position). With all due respect, I think this list hasn't dug deep
enough here.
I'll offer up a rationale. To determine the correct view of the cosmos,
we look first to what God has told us, second to what we can further
figure out from what He told us (e.g. If A, then B)--- (and third to
what we can further figure out on our own from "science", to the extent
this doesn't conflict with the first two steps). Our working assumption
on this list seems to presume what He has told us in the Bible. Good
enough for the sake of discussion. To be able to know what He has
actually told us in the Bible, we need to know if the books (and
words)we are looking at are actually in the Bible we think He gave us.
Since there have over time been competing claims as to what is --(and is
not)-- in the Bible, then to seriously undertake our geostatic quest, we
better see if He gave us an infallible authority to tell us this. The
non-Catholics cringe at this reality, since it points to the only
organization claiming such authority and which can through a study of
history also back up the claim (the Catholic Church is that authority).
Some who have studied history will concede the Church infallibly decided
the canon of the Bible, but they claim it can't infallibly get other
things right. But if we are going to be certain it was right in setting
the canon (so we can hang our hat on all those nonmoving earth clauses
that we think exist), we ought to want to know if it is always
infallible (in its official actions), because otherwise we are just
wishfully and arbitrarily believing/claiming it was at least infallible
when it set the canon--which history shows us it did (but that it was
otherwise unreliable on the things you don't like). So, it seems to be
intellectually honest in the quest, we ought to determine if history and
the Bible demonstrate Christ gave the Catholic Church this infallible
authority and then explore in what areas impacting the cosmos this
infallible Church has also officially, infallibly spoken. (The
non-Catholics don't generally like where this leads,, so you reject the
pursuit, because finding the truth here means you're in the wrong Church
and would have to change your practices, but that discussion is a
logical extension which I understand goes beyond this list). Any other
approach is simply starting in the middle of the line of logic and
ignorring major premises.
This anti-anything-Catholic posture keeps many from looking at the 1917
miracle of the Sun at Fatima--in which 70,000 +/-people (non-Catholics
and Catholics) witnessed the Sun actually come down from and girate in
the sky---i.e. listen up---the Sun moved. But we don't explore the
implications of what 70,000 people witnessed, presumably because to do
so would give credence to a Catholic Miracle confirming Catholic
doctrine occurring during an apparation in which Christ sent his Mother,
the Blessed Virgin Mary, for a visit back to earth.
Regards,
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl B. [mailto:c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:21 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJV, apocrypha
Gary -- Glad to hear you're KJV. We need a Scripture we can rely on if
we are to rely on Scripture for our authority. If none of them are
right, how can we be trust scripture for authority at all?
Re Apocrypha, IMHO the translators' job was not to establish canon but
rather to search the manuscripts of the canon they were given to find
the true ones and then to render the most perfect, accurate translation
they could, with God's annointing and help, provide.
It appears to me they succeeded in rendering a perfect job of providing
us with a perfect Bible. Typos made as a result of the typesetters that
had to be corrected later I do not think qualifies later versions as
"revisions,"
but rather as tidying up the printing. The KJV itself was a culmination
of the works of the Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, others
also -- and the translators were familiar with all of them and used all
of them in putting together the KJV.
William Tyndale especially had most of his stuff included intact in the
KJV.
This was the time of Shakespeare and the culmination of the English
language, and God's Word sounds like you would think His Word would
sound in KJV.
As to the apocrypha, the ones determining OT canon, the Jews, did not
immediately triumph over the Catholics who wanted the apocrphyat
included, did not resolve the dispute over the apocrypha until after the
Middle Ages.
The Jews had rejected this from their OT canon. The Jews have more
authority in this regard as it pertains to the apocrypha so their
opinion prevailed.
I don't know about the stablish and establish. Seems like they are the
same word. The argument I always hear used to discredit KJV is the use
of hte word Easter.
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Plenum and firmament
>
> Cheryl,
>
> Don't sell yourself short. You'll be up to speed with me in no time.
> I haven't a very long history with this subject at all. I kind of see
> us coming from a similar background. As a born and raised 45 year old
Baptist,
> I also tend to say KJV, but it's this thing of inerrancy that still
> has me bugged, I'll tell you. Yes, Dr. Bouw's a purist as far as the
> KJV goes
and
> believes to be inerrant. But I don't know. I wonder how we can say
> the
KJV
> is anything without specifying the exact KJV we are talking about?
>
> Did you know that when the 1611 KJV was printed it included the
Apocrypha?
> So what gives that we now do not have that in the KJV? If we are
> going to ascribe some clearer connection to God for the translators of
> our Bible version, hadn't we better learn just what the true product
> is they came up with?
>
> I have read that our KJV came into existence about 1881. Again, I'm
> no expert. But I do know that I own two KJV's. One renders the Psalm
> (I believe it's 93:1 here) as "stablish" while the other as
"establish".
>
> That's not a big deal perhaps, but it goes to show you there are
differences
> between even the modern printings of the KJV. I'm sure there are
> vastly more erudite folks to talk about this than myself, however.
>
> No, I haven't read Gordon Bane. I'll google him when I get the
chance.
>
> See, you're already asking the same question I have about the plenum
> and
the
> firmament. Perhaps Robert or the others will chime in here.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary Shelton
>
>
> > Gary -- I've not read your links yet, but I will. Being a woman, my
brain
> > doesn't work like the rest of yours. I don't get the engineering,
> > math
> and
> > physics stuff the way you all seem to so easily grasp it all. But I
have
> > intuition, a sense of where to look for the truth, an intuitive
> > sense of what it is when I recognize it. I am also logical. We all
> > need logic
and
> > humility, a willingness to accept the truth once we find it. I do
> > have
> some
> > biases/presuppositions -- I believe in God and I believe God is
> > Good,
and
> I
> > believe His Word is contained in the KJV only as Scripture.
> >
> > Other than that, I will consider anything as possible as long as it
lines
> up
> > with the other three suppositions/biases I have.
> >
> > Have you read any of Gordon Bane's stuff, The Geocentric Bible?
He
says
> > all the answers to cosmology are in the scriptures. He believes
> > every scripture has a mate, that there's another scripture located
> > somewhere between the two covers that explains and fulfils any other
scripture.
> >
> > He speaks continuously of the plenum and the firmament. It is true,
> > is
it
> > not, that the Copernican people don't believe in either one of these
> > concepts? Is it not true also that a proper understanding of both
> > of
> these,
> > plenum and firmament, will answer all the other questions?
> >
> > Is there agreement in this list/group as to what exactly the plenum
> > and
> the
> > firmament is? If so, could you explain it to me kind of the way you
> > did
> the
> > geocentric model?
> >
> > Cheryl
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:58 AM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
> >
> >
> > > Cheryl,
> > >
> > > I have provided the following link before. But it is a very good
> > > link
> to
> > a
> > > heated discussion between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis. Mr. Hoge
> firmly
> > > believes that the geo satellites (synchronous and stationary and
polar)
> > > solidly prove the earth is turning. Mr. Sungenis denies that.
> > >
> > > You'd have to give Mr. Hoge the prize for this particular debate,
> > > but
I
> > > don't think it's by any means the end of the debate.
> > >
> > > That link is:
> > > http://catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
> > >
> > > Read and learn all of this and you'll be very knowledgeable
indeed.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Gary Shelton
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
>
>
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- File: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
Other related posts:
