[geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:05:42 -0500
Philip -- Not to be argumentative with you, but there is no such thing as a
modern KJV, or as you say 21st century KJV. People can put any kind of
label they want on thing, but a rose is still a rose, and a rotton apple is
still a rotton apple. The so-called "New King James" is a rotton apple--
or, rather, a laughable counterfeit. It, along with all the other
counterfeits, changes words and meanings all over, introducing all kinds of
error and blasphemy as it sanitizes and genericizes and strips Jesus of His
diviinity. Case in point, the Gospel of John. The authorized KJV (I mean
the real thing) says Jesus is the Creator of everything, that everything
that was made was made BY Jesus. Then you have the KJV and all the other
counterfeit so-called "bibles" which say that the world was made "through"
Him. (Like somebody else really made everything and Jesus was a tool in
their hands.)
As I said, anyone can put any kind of name they want on something, but that
doesn't make it so. The "New" King James may be new but it's anything but
King James. And despite its claims, it does not use the same manuscripts
for translation.
As I said before and now it's being demonstrated on this forum -- it is
important to have an authority. Either God gave us a Bible we can believe
and trust, or He did not. If He did not, then what is the use of trying to
prove what He says is true re geocentrism/geostatism -- if we don't even
know what He said?
From what I've read about geocentrism, most all the adherents to
geocentricity are people who love and trust their KJVs, who know they hold
in their hands the real thing, the true Word of God that is perfect and
inerrent.
You won't see people with these other fuzzy New Age translations relying on
much of anything when it comes to "every jot and tittle." They have to read
their "bibles" -- and I use that word very loosely -- with their eyes
squinted from a distance hoping to maybe get an approximate glimpse of truth
from distance. These are the people who will tell you either that ALL the
translations are correct (which of course can't be true) or that NONE of
them are.
I would as soon rely on the Geneva Bible, or the Bishops Bible, or William
Tyndale's translation as any of these laughable New Age "bibles." We may as
well pick up the JW's bible as any of these, and in many respects they are
very similar.
We need to have an authority we can rely on if we are going to check
Scripture for the answers. Otherwise, we will all be speaking a different
language to each other.
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 12:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
> A more serious talk on the language of the Bible, specific to the sun.. In
my jest to Gary, I discovered something...that might be important..
> I noticed that the modernist s have changed Ecclesiastes 1verses 4 and
5... Look at what the 21st century KJV said. (now I am not being
denominationally argumentive here, the modern Catholic Bible has done worse)
>
> 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth
abideth for ever.
> 5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to his place
where he arose.
>
> That word "also" .. See how if applied to verse 5, in the same manner as
verse 4, then they can say that the bible is speaking with the meaning given
to "riseth" as when a generation dies and another comes, "into being" ..
This is a subtle way to attack the geocentric claim.
>
> Because the 1899 DR bible says,
>
> 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth
standeth for ever. 5The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his
place: and there rising again
>
> There is no "also "
>
> Now take a look at the KJV This is the 1611 version, 1987 print, not the
modern 1975 translation called the New KJV. , and quite distinct from the
21st century KJV.
>
> 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth
abideth for ever. 5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth
to his place where he arose.
>
> There is that added word... also Perchance a heliocentrist influence
in 1611
>
> Just for fun lets see what the 1987,new KJV translation said. This was
commissioned by Thomas Nelson, publishers said to be from the original???
Greek Hebrew and Arabic texts.. Funny how these seem to be available, when
they were not available to the 17th century, when they relied heavily on St.
Jeromes Vulgate.
>
> 4One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth
abides forever. 5The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to
the place where it arose...
>
> So thats 3 to 1 against geocentrism in the use of the word riseth... it
being merely also as a generation cometh and goeth.etc.
>
> I have no Latin.. perhaps someone can tell us if riseth is here, and if
"also" is there as well, Here is Jeromes words..
> 4generatio praeterit et generatio advenit terra vero in aeternum stat
>
> 5oritur sol et occidit et ad locum suum revertitur ibique renascens
>
>
>
> Philip.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Shelton
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 12:20 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
>
>
> Philip,
>
> You were quick to jump on this like a BA-er would, and it is
> plausible...sounding. But, you are comparing apples to oranges, don't
you
> think?
>
> That the sun does rise is a proper geocentric term taken literally.
>
> That the moon is "new" each month is also a proper geocentric term taken
> literally.
>
> I make this statement due to the sense of the use of the word "new".
Here
> in the states it is a common thing to say one has a "new" car. Now that
car
> may be a 1992 clunker, but if it's something that person just purchased,
> then it is still called "new". It is understood that the car is not
really
> "new" by the parties involved.
>
> Likewise, you seem to only be allowing Jack one definition for the word
> "new" here. The moon is new each month. That doesn't mean God created
it
> brand spanking "new" at that time. It is not a phenomenological
language
> issue at all; it is the simple fact that "new" has more than one
dictionary
> denotation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:37 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
>
>
> > Dear Gary,
> > Does the Bible not mention 'new Moon' somewhere?
> > Jack
> >
> > Now who said the Bible has to be taken literally, and not in the
> vernacular, i e The sun "rises?" in the east,, is only an expression
of
> what is seen...
> >
> > What we call a "new" moon is not new at all, is it.. ? So must we
look
> literally for an old moon?
> >
> > There is a new moon in the bible Jack then you might have just made a
big
> argument against us re the written word of God, not being literal, but
uses
> our figures of speech....
> >
> > 1 Kings 20-5
> > 4 kings 4-23
> > psalm 80
> > Ezechial 46
> >
> > Philip.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05
>
>
>
Other related posts:
