Memorial Day

An oft heard phrase is, " all gave some, some gave all."

And it's true.

The American Soldier, Airman, or Sailor puts his / her life on the line for the US citizenry and for people they don't even know but were oppressed in their homeland. And they've done it time and again.

The Holy Bible says, "No greater love has any man than he be willing to die for a friend.(Jn 15:13 [paraphrased]) That's something our military has done in spades since the Revolutionary War.

Once again it is Memorial Day when we are to remember those that gave all and those that gave some, but let's not forget those that "just" served and those still serving.

Or the ones that were spit upon.

For me it's :

Charles J. Beard (Deceased ,WWI USN ... My step-dad)

Lester F. Cochran (Deceased, WWII USN .. My Dad)

George R. Cochran (Deceased, Korea USAF .. Brother)

Billie G. Cochran (Korea USAF, SSGT ...Brother)

Richard T. Cochran (USAF, SSGT ... Brother)

Charles L. Cochran Jr.(USN [medical discharge] ... Son)

Bryon S. Cochran (USN PO... Son)

Ron Hall (USA WO ... 'Nam, best friend in High School, Franklin IN)

Russell Ellis (USAF... 'Nam / INARNG, SSGT ... 'Nam Era. ... co-section-chief Third Plt, 1313th Combat Eng. ARFTA (Camp Atterbury) INARNG ... Best friend in my company)

If you know a Vet, prior service person, or someone currently serving, shake their hand, tell them "thanks!" and pass on the same from:

(Ex) SSGT Charles L. Cochran, IN/CO/UT ARNG (1969-1978, 1980-1982)

Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder children. How do you feel about that?

What the heck are you talking about?

If you mean abortion, no it doesn't. If you mean the commandmaent, " Thou shalt not kill"; the Hebrew word is more correctly translated "murder". The King James translators are to blame there.

But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows killing only in self-defense or in time of war.

If you mean the so-called "collateral" deaths found in wartime ... I know from my own time in the srvice that our military would love to know how to fight a war and never kill an innocent party. Got any ideas? Send them to the Pentagon.

If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.

If you are in the US and just anti- US /military, feel free to emmigrate to a socialist country where you can be oppressed to your heart's desire ... nobody's gonna stop you.

Budd

I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).

Does that mention children?

I'm surprised at your ignorance about the very Bible you claim to adore. There are many, many verses that applaud killing in general, but I'm speaking of one in particular here (though there are others).

I see you're unable to keep your attention on the topic at hand and feel the need to bring up unrelated issues. This does not speak well for your ability to think.

I know "the Bible" (not that there is such a thing) better than you, since I know about the existence of its praise for child murder and you do not.

Once again you bring up unrelated issues. This is due no doubt to a mental weakness on your part and an inability to treat with the matter at hand.

I direct you, sir, to read Psalms 137:9. Here is the text from the Geneva edition; the wording varies a bit from one edition to another but the sentiment is the same in all translations:

Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the stones.

You may now apologize for being wrong both about what the Bible says and your knowledge about it.

The Geneva Bible:

According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less accurate than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.

Have you tried putting it back into context where you find the reference is actually to harlot Babylon who will be destroyed in the end times (see The Revelation of John)?

The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children ... do you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.

Doesn't sound like you have to me.

Mat. 7:5

Budd

I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging his bets and not taking any chances.

In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.

So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)

Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.

Larry

You're right, it is a jeep group, but someone chose to cause a religious argument over the quote used in the post of another.

So, who really should be "net nannied"? Not the OP.

Oh, wait, that's me.

btw, there is not any difference in the true nature of YHVH between the New and Old Testaments except that which people like you try to imagine.

Check

or for answers to your claim.

Budd

I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum; however the history of the authorship of the gospels is an interesting subject and if you only read the "canon gospels", you are really missing a lot of interesting history. For example, ideas about nature of God and the Afterlife was somewhat formalized at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD when there was a meeting of all the known Christian bishops from the known world. These were early Christian bishops and there was no authoritative bible at that time, as the formalized canon gospels came a few decades later. The irony is that these Christian bishops met under the leadership of Emperor Constantine, essentially a pagan emperor at the time of the meeting. However, according some church fathers he did become a Christian on his death bed, probably hedging his bets and not taking any chances.

In fact the selection of the so called canon gospels you are referring to were essentially arrived at by a politicization of Christianity by pagan roman emperors. If you google Nag Hammadi scrolls, you will find a lot more gospels that were ignored by the political establishment in the mid to late 4th century.

So, essentially early Christianity was largely influenced by the pagan power structure of the time. (Think "Roman" Catholic Church)

Also when while you are discussing the bible, have you noticed the difference in the description of the nature of God between the Old and New Testaments? The God in the New Testament is a more universal and loving God compared to the god described in the Old Testament.

Larry

I see your reading comprehension is very bad. From the very article you quoted:

"The work of Protestant exiles from England and Scotland, the Geneva Bible is well respected and was an important Bible in Scotland and England before and even after the King James Version was published in

1611. For some forty years after the King James Version was published, the Geneva Bible remained the most popular English Translation of the Bible."

Also (again, from your source):

"Building upon earlier English translations such as those done by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, the Geneva Bible was the first English translation in which all of the Old Testament was translated directly from Hebrew manuscripts. Much of the translation work was done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin."

This is important because the Geneva Bible also did not rely on the many corruptions that were induced in the Vulgate, on which the KJV is based.

Finally:

"The Geneva Bible is a very important English translation and was the primary Bible used by many early settlers in America. In recent years it has gained increasing popularity again, both because it is an excellent translation and because of its well-written study notes."

Please explain how that makes it the same as the KJV.

Please show were the text says anything at all about that; otherwise, you're just reading into it what you want it to say. Here's the entire text:

Psalm 137

1 By the rivers of Babel we sat, and there we wept, when we remembered Zion. 2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. 3 Then they that led us captives, required of us songs and mirth, when we had hanged up our harps, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. 4 How shall we sing, said we, a song of the Lord in a strange land? 5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget to play. 6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth: yea, if I prefer not Jerusalem to my chief joy. 7 Remember the children of Edom, O Lord, in the day of Jerusalem, which said, Raze it, raze it to the foundation thereof. 8 O daughter of Babel, worthy to be destroyed, blessed shall he be that rewardeth thee, as thou hast served us. 9 Blessed shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy children against the stones.

Note that there are no mentions of harlots or anything eschatological at all.

Since you seem to think the KJV is superior, here is its text:

Pss.137

[1] By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. [2] We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. [3] For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. [4] How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land? [5] If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. [6] If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. [7] Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. [8] O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. [9] Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Did you note how the final line expresses the same sentiment about killing children? Please make a note of it.

Only because their parents lied about them. Read for yourself:

[18] If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: [19] Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; [20] And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. [21] And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Did you see how they accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton even though the first verse only talks about being rebellious?

Nevertheless, it only reinforces my point that the Bible praises the killing or maiming of children, something you claimed it does not do.

So you knew about this verse but still claimed the Bible did not condone killing children? That makes you a liar.

So saith someone who doesn't even know the Bible he bases his religion on.

Matthew 6:5.

If you're complaining that this post is off topic, please complain also to Bud about his Memorial Day post being off topic. However, the real point is that it is a discussion group, period.

The Bible wasn't even really formalized then, as various versions of some of the books were superceded as late as the 12th century.

To be fair, some were ignored for good reason, e.g. because they were clearly fraudulent and riddled with impossibilities. However, others were left for purely political purposes as you point out and it's important to keep that in mind.

Not surprising given the fact that the Old Testament was based on the Tanach.

Then why did you bring up Memorial Day? Don't be a hypocrite: either the group speech is ONLY about Jeeps, or it's an open group.

I chose to point out that you were talking out of your ass about a book you don't even know. Quick question: who does the New Testament say is Jesus's father in a technical sense?

In other words, you're asserting special pleading for yourself. Nice.

Yaweh is never mentioned at all in the New Testament. There's no evidence the being called "God" is even the same being in the two sets of books.

I have a better idea: try actually reading the Bible some time instead of claiming you know what it does or doesn't say on a given topic. You might be surprised how much you think you know about it is untrue. Here's a handy place to start:

P.S. Here's more stuff not in the Bible that you probably think there is:

> The Geneva Bible:>

Ya know, there is one big difference between us besides our source for scriptures ... I don't claim to be a Scripture expert and you do and you shove it down people's throats with a vengance Christ never used on anyone except the moneychangers in the Temple.

And the only difference there was he was justified, you're not..

According to the KJV, NIV, NKJV, as I understand it, Father God, YHVH, thru the actions of the Third Person of the Trinity (Elohim) was the father of the child Jesus who was fully God and fully Man.

And if you disagree, then you disagree.

Budd

I don't claim to be an expert; I claim that I know more about it than you do, which is an important distinction since you refer to it as "holy" yet clearly have no answer for the many passages in which it applauds horrible things happening to people. I've only touched on a couple of them; there are many many more. You still have yet to answer how smashing children against rocks is a good thing.

Christ did what he did because the Jews had allowed their holy Tabernacle to be corrupted. You clearly do not understand the difference between manly temper and Godly anger. I do what I do for similar, if not identical, reasons. There is no vengeance here, only an attempt to get you to think.

So says the man who lied about what his Bible says WRT killing children.

Then you do not understand it. The Bible says many times that the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, and Luke again. Wait, here they are from the online KJV:

Matthew:

[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mark:

[8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. [9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. [10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: [11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

Luke:

[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: [33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? [35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Note that the angel specifically says that the Holy Ghost will place the child in her womb but the child will be CALLED the Son of God, not that he is the son of God (presumably Yahweh).

Note too that the Holy Ghost then goes and knocks someone else up right after that:

[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Finally, note what Jesus has to say about forgiveness of sin:

[31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. [32] And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

That's his Father he's talking about. Remember when Pilate confronts him about being the Son of GOD he does not admit that.

If you have read the New Testament, then you realize that even Jesus does not say he is the son of Yahweh.

Matthew:

[11] And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

Mark:

[2] And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.

Luke:

[3] And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

John:

[33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

If you have scripture to the contrary, please share it.

Why are you insisting on arguing?

This is what is important:

Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, was fully man and fully God, and was sinless before God. (symbolized by unblemished sacrificial animals)

Jesus offered Himself for the sacrifice (The Lamb of God) for the sins of many (all that have or will believe on Him).

He died and lay in the sealed tomb for three days ( The sign of Jonah) (symbolized by the broken Matzo which is hidden in the Passover Seder)

He rose on the first day of the week ( what we call Sunday) to bring Eternal life for those that believe.(symbolized by when the hidden bread is brought forth in the Passover Seder)

Paul spoke on Mars Hill to the philosophers who were worshiping at a multitude of idols, including one for the "unknown god". He never once used a single verse of Scripture, but he did teach about the Resurrection. Therefore, the Scriptures prove the Scriptures aren't the important part of evangelism.

He taught Jesus is the only perfect being or god that ever willingly died for our sins and then rose again based on Nature.

And that is what really matters about Scripture and their translations.

And that, my friend, is the end of the discussion. Everything else in the Scriptures, except for some historical or man-written bits, essentially either predicted, symbolized, or detailed His life, ministry and Resurrection.

Goodbye (which, in it's original form was, "God be with ye").

Budd

Why are you insisting on dodging the questions? Do they make you doubt things too much?

So the Old Testament is not important? Its praise of murder, rape, and other atrocities is perfectly all right by you?

So say you. Other Christians say different things. Why do you believe your interpretation is correct and theirs is not?

Jesus had no choice in the matter.

Unless of course he was in Hell during that time, as some believe.

That's not what Jesus says in Matthew 19.

16 ¶ And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, even God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him, Which? And Jesus said, These, Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not bear false witness; 19 Honor thy father and mother; and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

He does not say anything about believing in him. When the young man says he has already done those things, Jesus says that to be perfect he must do other things as well:

20 The young man said unto him, I have observed all these things from my youth. What lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, and follow me. 22 And when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

So according to Jesus is it possible to have eternal life without following or even believing in him, and without following at least some of the Ten Commandments. Only those who wish to be perfect need worry about more than not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing, not bearing false witness, honoring their parents and loving their neighbors.

Paul's commentaries directly contradict some of Jesus' teachings and are thus suspect.

Jesus did not want you to evangelize for him.

Jesus had no say in the matter of whether or not he would be crucified.

What matters is knowing the tenets of the religion you profess to follow, not some cartoon version of it.

In other words, you have no answers for the problems I've pointed out and are doing the Internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you!"

Care to show how you can tell one from the other?

Tell me, which of those is taking place in Judges 4:21 where Heber's wife drives a tent peg through his head and into the ground while he was asleep, killing him?

Chicken.

I lurk here for Jeep content

So why did you feel the need to announce that?