Bible Questions & Discussion PAGE 69

Ge.1:14-18 "The lights" (2 of 2)

Israel in the wilderness

"where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days." (12:6) The number is a tag for the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. By the token power given to the beast works out to 42 months. ("And power was given unto him to continue forty and two months."-13:5). By literal approach the modern churches are blind to the heresies and in the political agenda they would accept the Israel despite of being cast off as reprobate. So we hear foolish arguments over Sabbath and the superiority of KJV. Fools cannot appreciate the Spirit's leading but must lay out as though the holiness of God is like a debating society and where does it lead? Nowhere and they end up as ignorant as when they begun.

Hi GiGi

My opinion about translations.

I mainly use a greek Bible that was written in the 1850's. The greek in that Bible is quite close to the greek spoken in Jesus' times. It is generally considered very accurate.but a bit difficult to understand some times. So I have to look some things up in other modern greek Bibles for clarification. I wouldn't use the word "translation" for that Bible, it is a modern version of the ancient grk. But still it is not perfect. I don't think that any translation can be perfect. Just some translations are more accurate than others. As we have discussed that topic before a translator can have two options. They can translate word for a word which can sometimes lead to not understandable texts since different languages use different expressions for the same things and so something which is clear say in Engl. may not make any sense in grk or translate in a free manner (if that is a right expression). In this latter case the translator often has to find out first what the author tries to say and then say it in understandable English.In the NT Paul is a person with a very complicated way of thinking and sometimes it is difficult to understand what he wants to say.

But I think that all famous translations old and new have taken into account other translations older and newer as well as the knowledge of numerous scholars and theologians. So they have done that job for us. So I wouldn't really care which translation I use as far as it is a known and acceptable version. I could also use more than one, why not?

Now about what people here say about "an inspired" translation . Definitely God helps people who have the task of propagating His Word in every nation and language. But inspired? I can not answer to that.

But I would also like to discuss with you lot what "inspired" means. Because many people believe that "God inspired" means "God written" or "God dictated" which is absolutely wrong. But I will go through that during the weekend.

GBU

Ge.1:14-18 "The lights" (1 of 2)

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs" The lights as sign was in the divine Will.

How does the Spirit set the will of the Father in Re.12:1 "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars." What does the crown of 12 stars? Gospel of God (The Word was God- John 1:1). The command number 12 refers to the Gospel of Christ and the 12 Associates (disciples.) Compare the seven stars in the hand of Jesus Christ in Re.1:20 ("The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.") The Number 7 indicates the will of the Father is complete. So it is the Fellowship of God (the Ancient of days) and the Man (Christ) we are looking at.

The Sun and the Moon to divide the day from the night. Their light is derived from divine command, "Fiat Lux!"

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."(1:5)

The first day denotes the first bullet point in the Abstract. It shall lead to a morning in the new heaven and the new day. (Re.21:1)

2. "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."(Ge.1:16)

The Holy Family figuratively a woman, standing on the moon reveals the obedience of the Son while the Son overhead is God the Father. The church has a body called to be holy. So she is clothed with the sun. Re.12:4 tells of another story. The Fall of man and the casting off Israel as a nation is stated thus, "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. " Israel is not part of the man child. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

Israel in the wilderness(12:6)

One last thought :) . The king James version is actually a translation , are any other modern versions actual translations ? Or have they just replaced some words with others ? If in doubt , look up the definition of the word ' translation ' .

Sorry :) I have another comment about the KJV . I think the reason that many ascribe an almost mythical status to it is because , at the time it was commissioned , and even now I suppose , it would have been an enormous undertaking , costing a lot of money and time etc . Something that only someone with power and wealth would have been able to put in motion , this person happened to be a king , we have all read how God uses people , usually but not always , people with power and money to accomplish His desire and many people then and now , believed and still believe that kings are put in place by God , each person in life fulfills the perpose that God has assigned them . So , going by that logic , God used a king , that He Himself set up , in order to fulfill His purpose of bringing His Word to the masses . It seems quite a reasonable arguement to me , but it's one that I'm staying out of as of now :) .

My only comment about different translations of the Bible is this : this happens to be a King James Bible site . So , people who come on here might have the expectation of hearing about it , the KJV . As it's called the KJV or KJB site , that's not an unreasonable assumption . Does the niv or other translations have sites just for them ? If yes , any of us can go check them out if we want to talk about those translations on those sites can't they ? The reason the KJV is so popular is because it's one of the oldest versions still in print and , English has been very widely spoken for hundreds of years because of its so called empire and commonwealth , many of the citizens of the empire or commonwealth , were brought up as members of the church of England and learned to speak English , even if they lived in Africa or Asian . That's why so many people are familiar with the KJV and have such affection for it .

The Revelation (2 of 2)

In the Book of Genesis the seven days accounted for the Everlasting Covenant and the generation of Jesus. The Book of the Revelation reveals the Ancient of days (notice the plural) So we are seeing the day of wrath on the earth and the cusp of the day of regeneration.

The emblem of the slain Lamb was obliquely stated in 'the coat of skins' and in the scapegoat and Paschal lamb but in the last book we have the realities in heaven stretched over the constituted time. So the Lamb worthy to break open the seven seals are set before the foundation of the world. In the Four horsemen riding out in Re. Ch.6 thus gives us a context for all the wars famines plagues, pestilence mentioned in the history of nations. Similarly the red dragon appearing in Ch..12 'sinneth from the beginning'

The book of the Revelation serves as an envoi to the salvation epic. It fits with the narrative mode of 'kangaroo event' (the wilderness wanderings of Israel as kangaroo event for our life as sojourners and pilgrims on the earth.

Unlike the Genesis where generations of heaven and earth refers to' the day' ("that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,"-Ge.2:4) the emphasis is on the testimony of Jesus Christ (1:2) so the throne of God and of the Lamb places the newness of His creation as the proof of the spirit of prophecy. " And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."(Re.19:10)

"He sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" This angel one of the witnesses in the cloud, probably John or any other in the body of Christ which explains, "thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus". These names are interchangeable. So how we conduct here has serious consequence. "and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

The Revelation (1 of 2)

The entire book is from the fulfillment aspect of the Son while the Genesis began with the complete and perfect will of God the Father. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" so began the creation account. Instead we have the Fellowship of God with Man in the inaugural vision of 'the one like unto the Son of man'.(Re.1:13-17) Here we have the Ancient of the days and the Man evocative of the night vision of Daniel. (Dan.7:9) They are superimposed, however. "And out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword" is how the Spirit gives a concrete imagery to the word of God sent forth..(Is.55:11). "And his voice as the sound of many waters." is the reality of heaven in his Alpha and Omega aspect. "The Lord sitteth upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever."(Ps.29:10). The description of Christ in vv13-14 "clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle./His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;" does not hint of the cross or nail marks for a reason. We are looking at Jesus Christ the same (Heb.13:8) and "The Word was with God." ( John 1:1)

The Book of Genesis began with the Abstract of seven days. Instead we have here series of sevens, seven candles, seven trumpets, seven vials indicating the emphasis is on the things which are shortly come to pass, "for the time is at hand."(1:3) The emphasis is on the saints redeemed from the earth' and are set in heavenly places. We see the great congregation in the night vision of Daniel. These form the cloud of witness (and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,-Dan.7:13)

They are part of the holy family and we are also told one third of these shall be cast to the earth ("And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: Re.12:4). In this context we appreciate the warning of Jesus Christ to the seven churches.

Ronald,

Thanks for your wise words.

At least we can agree that many modern translations are spurious in part; some are clearly blasphemous or not well translated.

The other issue which I hate to bring up is that when more than one manuscript is mentioned (such as a few KJV mentions) there could be more than one case which is the inspired version; why can't the truth be slightly different in multiple manuscripts that each have a different part of it? Their own comments vary from saying there is another mansucript that may be equally valid or one that is likely NOT valid originally. We can't prove of course an earlier version HAS to be the correct one as again they are hundreds of years removed from the original texts. This does happen; at times for context. Personally I spend some time reading a lengthy dissertation of NIV as to its errors. I'm not as familiar with other stuff.

Since we are in a checkmate situation discussing this subject; I will say that we need to consider carefully if we are going to disfellowship with other believers who have a different translation. Many major topics have a similar enough meaning in different versions (I could mention the New King James which may have English more understandable as we speak today). As to what churches we attend that is up to us but those who show fruit of true faith I would think we should choose battles wisely. Also that goes for those who may read the version we approve of but have no evidence of saving faith.

So anyway not to belabor the point. I'll leave it up to you how to deal with others with this issue.

Jesse,

I think that one fault (among many) of the King James Onlyism movement is an approach to Scripture inerrancy that is Anglo-centric, as if God only intended those who speak and understand English are to read a Bible in 16th century English that is the ONLY true, errorless, and God-inspired Bible. But there are millions and millions of Christians who read and understand and learn from Bibles written in their own native tongue or one they have learned such as Greek. If the language of Europe and the U.S. were Greek only, would the Bible translation that is Greek be uninspired and full of errors? I think not. In fact I think a Greek translation is probably even more accurate than and English one.

God chose to send His Son at a time when Greek was the international language of the day and Aramaic was the common language of the people in Israel. The Scribes and Teachers were the ones who read and studied the Torah in Hebrew,

for the most part. Most Jews of that time needed to go to the synagogue to hear the Torah be read to them. Did they not hear the true word of God at that time, as the scrolls read in the synagogues were copies of copies of copies of the original writings.

Anyone who make the claims often stated by King James Onlyists are speaking not from facts, nor from the viewpoint of the original translators, but from a rather recently-emerged movement of a very small minority of believers.

But people will fall for any teaching that is unfounded if they are not careful and diligent and I think that this may be the case for the King James Onlyists. This site is a KJV site but not a King James Only site. It is not a part of this movement. It is a site that offers the KJV to readers along with many helps and a wonderful discussion forum, but nowhere does it say that it adheres to King James Onlyism. Those who insist that this site is to be so are speaking in error concerning this site.

I appreciate that you have spoken well on this topic Jesse.

Hay brothers and sisters,

Concerning translations, I would like to say, I could list many things about translations what text were used, what influence Latin had on it, what was not allowed, what was added, but something to consider. I read and study the KJV but it is an English translation but only 25 to 30 percent of the population of the world can read or speak English. What about the 70 + non-English people. We can take a doctrine or a belief and find Scripture to fit it. If a translation is what we put our faith in our ears are closed to the truth given to us by the Holy Spirit.

Mark 13:11 John 14:26 The Holy Spirit is our teacher if our ears and eyes are open to hear and see. If we do not clear our minds and pray to our Father to show us the truth it does not matter what translation, we read. We wonder why there are so many denominations and beliefs?????

I love you all and may God bless,

RLW

Jesse,

Again, well stated.

The original manuscripts were written in perhaps, proto-Hebrew by Moses or the Hebrew that the Jews knew going into captivity, Aramaic, and Greek. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Torah. Most of the people of the time of the writing of the original writings would have understood what was being said in these languages as they were either their mother tongue or a learned language. In the time that the KJV, and other protestant translations were made, the Latin Vulgate was the common Bible used in the church up until the Reformation when Luther and Calvin translated the Latin Bible into their native tongues. Some in England also translated what manuscripts that were available at that time into an English version that was written in the English of that time period. Very few people in England in the early 1600's spoke nor understood Hebrew or Greek or even Latin. There was not a great amount of literature available to be read by common folk at that time in most instances anyway.

And today, very few of us in English speaking countries can read or speak Greek or Hebrew. So how can any of us know for certain if the translators did their work accurately as compared to the manuscripts that were available at the time of the translation.

If most of the people of the U.S. and Europe spoke Greek, we would have a Greek translation made in the early 1600's. Would King James Only folks say that such a Greek translation was accurate, infallible, and re-inspired like they do with the English translation of the KJV? The Greek translation would be even more accurate to those who can read and understand Greek!

There are millions upon millions of non-English speaking Christians who read the Bible in their own language or one they can read and understand that is not English. Are they learning from corrupt versions because they are not the KJV in English? I think not!

GiGi,

Thank you! Something I think we must keep in mind is that the KJV is a translation, meaning the translators had to translate from something. If they were inspired by God to put forth a perfect translation superior to all others, and the only one that should be used and trusted, you would think the translators might have at least hinted to that.

The KJV translators took what was available to them (the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts), and translated those texts into English after being commissioned King James I.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I read the KJV. It is my bible of choice, but I know it is not perfect. I trust the KJV, but there are other English translations that I also trust. If I were to make such a claim about the KJV, how do I back that claim up? I can't, unless I take my English text bible, sit down with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, and take on the tedious task of doing a word-for-word comparison, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. Otherwise, I can only make such a claim off blind faith, trusting that the translators made no errors.

If one claims that the KJV is infallible and without error, and that all other versions are corrupt, what is their standard in making such a claim? Is the KJV the standard? A KJV Onlyist might say yes. But then the burden of proof must be on them to prove that the translators were infallible, incapable of making any errors in their translation of the texts they had available.

If there are differences between the KJB translation, and the original languages and texts, are we to trust the original texts, or are we to believe that the KJV is correct, and the Hebrew and Greek are wrong?

Just a thought!

Hi Bennyhkje: A little offense taken, but that's ok. I believe you are a very intelligent, man of intellect and I understand why you wouldn't want to listen to a woman of "nonsense" that believes the KJB bible was written By God, so I will be silent, for you. Thank You for the discussions we have had. I have enjoyed them. God Bless :)

Your welcome and I will take your lead and roll over, also, after this response.

"I will state that it is infallable as to doctrinal matters ..... When one manuscript is chosen over another there MAY be a clear indication error occurred but in other cases we can't say other versions are wrong either." You don't seem to understand or else believe that when God canonizes His word it is in a righteous and complete way. God doesn't do this so that some parts are right and some wrong so they need to be corrected, added too or erased according to man's arrogance. If we can't trust all of it we

can't trust any of it. Do we trust and have faith in God's omniscience and omnipotence spirit or don't we?

As far as the Apocrypha goes, this is just a side-step to ignore the corrupt verses I included, which, you did not respond to. The Apocrypha was always understood by Christians of that day that it was not a canonized book and, therefore, it was advised to read in private, to not preach from it. I believe, the Lord allowed it for a while to help separated the wheat (Protestantism) from the chaff (Catholicism). It is still in their bible.

The example I gave in Rev. 13:8 is just one of a myriad of ridiculous to serious changes the new versions, written by man, are riddled with. I know you probably won't', but if you were to do a comparison of even just a few of the over 200 new English versions available today, you would understand this belief and see the differences yourself. You can get a list of the particular verses to compare online. You don't have to pay any attention to what is said about these changes, just get the list of verses and versions and compare them yourself. I really hope you haven't done this already, and are still promoting the new versions?

I hope we can have continued discussions other then this one. I enjoy reading your comments. God Bless :)

Amen Brother Jesse.

No, I have never read the introduction to the 1611 KJB but I will do so.

Thanks and God bless!

Hello Richard

Actually the Dead Sea Scrolls include many of the Apocrypha or as others call them Deuterocanonical Books. A bit less than half of the books found there are from the Apocrypha.

Also in the New Testament, in the epistle of Jude we can find stories from books that both Christians and Jews rejected as fake. One is the incident about Moses' dead body and the other the incident with Enoch. Both of those stories can not be found in the Bible. That shows that at that time things were a bit fluid and since there wasn't any canon established yet, people were reading all sort of religious books. That is why those Apocrypha were included in the Septuagint which means that they were read by Jews at that time. A lot later both Christians and Jews canonised their scriptures.

Consider it as read, if you will. I choose silence than read nonsense. Take in good Spirit, momsage.

"Dreams"

Dreams are outside the will of man. Man has no power in himself to write history any more than choose his dreams or the script for what he sees in his REM state. Dreams are arranged according to the divine Will shaping all events so what God looks for is faith,- the DNA of God, 'Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.(He.11:3). It is the quality unseen characteristic of divine pedigree.

Those who doubt the Virgin birth have no clue as they apply their rational mind for what is purely spiritual. God had revealed to Isaiah of virgin birth 'The virgin shall herself conceive and bear a Son '(Is.7:14) . It is the task of the Spirit to arrange matters so the Angel visits Mary and reveal the birth of her son. Simultaneously he also visits Joseph in a dream. Matt.1:20). In the revolt of Miriam and Aaron against Moses God intervenes and tells, "Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream (Nu.12:6)".It is thus the Sprit sets up dreams and visions on a need-to-know basis. On the other the Will of God is perfect requiring no correction whatsoever. So in Trinity the third office is about the time aspect .

We were foreknown by Him and events so arranged each of us to confess his Son as the Savior. It is also validated in the birth of Jesus that Palestine was under the Roman rule so crucifixion foretold by prophets would occur accordingly.

"Dragnet"

Matt.13:47-48

The kingdom of heaven is compared to a net cast into the sea. We may assume it as dragnet, which considering the area to be scoured must be of infinite size. The Son of man deputes angels to gather the good and throw away the bad. It is not difficult to imagine it is about judgment by which God shall have the good to himself as in the case of the Parable of the tares. Basically the kingdom of heaven distinguishes two groups of people, namely children of light and children of wrath. (See entry under W/ word-wide web)

When Jesus of Nazareth assembled his disciples he had assured Peter and Andrew them that,". Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men(Matt.4:19)", in the sense the Word separates the children of light and of wrath.

In the parable we find the waters mentioned. The waters speak of the world. "But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud (Is.57:20)". In eternity no more sea shall be found (Rev.21:1)

In the Book of Genesis we read of several separations. (See entry under A-Abstract)

These separations shall culminate in the inauguration of new heaven and new earth. As promised by Jesus the word-wide web serves as a dragnet. Jesus called his disciples as his associates to draw the catch to the shore. "Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." (Matt,13:48) (See under the Rule of Three-principle of Association)

"Balaam's donkey didn't have the KJV either." Brother Spencer, that is a rather humorous visual, but good point. God can speak to us with or without the written word. We are blessed to have His spoken word in written form to study from, but if every bible somehow disappeared, God's Spirit will still speak to us in some other way. I'm not sure if you have read the introduction to the 1611 KJB that can be found on this website, but it is a very good read. The translators were not KJB only and never claimed to be infallible, nor their translation to be infallible. There is nothing found in the KJB that states that it is the only bible to be trusted.

I think most of us here read the King James Bible and would agree that it is a very good translation. But it is a translation, and as you say, no translation is infallible! And many would probably agree that there are some corrupt versions out there. But there are also other good translations that can be trusted the same!

God Bless!!!

Joel 2:32 KJV

32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

I haven't said or done anything or stopped anyone from entering in God's church or believing in Jesus to be saved!

The word of God is infallible.

No translation is infallible.

Most of our short comings in the word of God is probably in the area of faulty hermeneutics and a lack of taking in the whole counsel of God's scripture.

If the KJV or any other translation was the only one available there would still be much error.

The error is in man!

.

It's nothing wrong with the seed, It's the ground where the issue often is found.

God's message of any doctrine doesn't hang on one verse.

If you removed John 3:16 from the word of God would you loose It's message?

YOU SHOULDN'T!

Don't doesn't have a problem with a blood tipped ear and eyes that see.

The word and the work of the Holyspirit is infallible

John 3:16 is spreaded broadly throughout the bible.

"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, We don't solely depend on Jn 3:16 to tell us that!

"THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON,"

We don't solely depend on Jn 3:16 to tell us that!

THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. We don't solely depend on Jn 3:16 to tell us that!

I use the king James Bible however it's not perfect but don't let that get in the way!!

God doesn't have a problem conveying his message.

Balaams donkey didn't have the KJV either.

Study the word of God!

It patches itself up.

God bless.

I am going to roll over after this last attempt to answer your question.

First; again we need to understand that the KJV was closest to the OLDER renditions of Geneva and Tyndale. Again the earliest edition in 1611 had the Apocrypha which was NOT inspired for 50 years or so and in this country apparently until the mid 1800s.

I will state that it is infallable as to doctrinal matters. For instance all but one or two books are in the Dead Sea scrolls from the 66 in our Bible; but other extrabiblical stuff was left out. We cannot say the same for a few words different (even KJV will state that one manuscript is slightly different as an option in it's own commentary and there may be a couple other cases when other manuscripts have a section present or missing.) When one manuscript is chosen over another there MAY be a clear indication error occurred but in other cases we can't say other versions are wrong either.

Finally; the issue in Revelation is adding new scripture AFTER Revelation or deliberately adding or subtracting from Revelation in particular but also indicating not doing violence deliberately to scripture after the Word is complete post Revelation. Such a manipulation is CLEAR in things such as the Passion Translation and the versions that cults have (such as the Jehovah's Witness Bible). That is different than say a historical statement (which BTW is needed to understand the Feast of Dedication which Jesus celebrated (i.e. Hanukkah) which is NOT in either Testament of the Bible except there and to understand it we need to read from nonbiblical sources. Facts can be scriptural or nonscriptural as God uses all things for His glory.

One can argue that God wouldn't allow error in numbers taken in a census or other like statistics but discrepancies appear to exist even within different passages in KJV which again usually can be explained with the details missing or added in another section.

Thanks for taking time to read this.

Agape.

The hidden Christ

Mark 8:30 is one of several verses indicating Christ told people including the Disciples NOT to tell anyone who He was (namely; the Son of God). He spoke in Parables to hide things from all except those called and chosen (see Matthew 13:10).

When we survey the narrative of the Gospels it leaves us dumbfounded as to how anyone could not realize who Christ was. After all John the Baptist after baptizing a large amount of the entire population including the Pharisees warning them of who was to come identified Christ ( John 1:32 and recorded in Luke 3:22 as being accompanied by a voice from heaven). Only the Spirit could reveal this truth as we see in Matthew 16:17.

There are several reasons for this blindness. One is the god of this world who is mentioned as blinding men to the truth as illustrated in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The second was in the hidden counsels of God more than likely (See Deut. 29:29). If the wicked knew who He was they would have stopped it because it would have led to their guilt in the act and He would inevitably be Resurrected. Satan also may have not been involved because it would mean His defeat as prophesied in Genesis 3:15 (although he is insane enough to ignore what he probably should have known). Israel should have recognized that the suffering servant would also come back as conquering king. They would have waited until He established that Kingdom on earth without having a heart to truly worship Him; reminiscent of the group who finally rebels at the end of the Millennium period.

We need to squarely face this fact in terms of how the unregenerate view Christ. Any affinity one may have for Jesus apart from the grace of God bringing repentance is from a false Christ in our imaginations which inevitably brings a works based attempt at salvation or considering Him a great teacher or Prophet as was the case of those in Matthew 16:14. Church is the congregation of the Holy not a social club for comfort.

"Surely it's better to talk about what we are reading , which book ? What do we think about it ? Any questions about it etc . Let's help each other out and talk about the Truth , the actual Word and what it means to us . Much more fun than going round in

circles " I'm sorry I guess I put to much into this and misunderstood your meaning. I apologize. God Bless :)

Hi Red Apple,

I love this verse. It is such a good benediction to use in so many circumstances. So glad God gave Paul this way to bless others. His own words for us to use to call God's favor upon those we love. I don't think we can say things better than God can!

Yes, I have. I'll see about that.

God Bless :)

I really like Genesis because chapters 1-2:4 gives us the whole story of the creation and the incredible God who did this. People who would rather believe they came from a soppy pool of acid on a rock instead of our wonderful, magnificent omnipotent God are so foolish. I know it is because a pool of soppy gunk doesn't demand anything of them but it doesn't love them unconditionally and promise an unimageable "expected end" Jer. 29:11 like our God does. It's a bad life living for yourself, even if you don't believed in evolution.

God Bless :)