However this isn’t true and cannot be proven. I like the KJV and NKJV (my primary Bible) but this statement makes no sense.
You are incorrect. “Into” and “unto” have different meanings. The new translations use “into” where the KJV uses “unto”. This changes the meaning slightly, but the difference is significant in the travel of the cross.
What you truly mean is that you believe I am incorrect. That’s fine, but doesn’t invalidate my argument above.
What’s your opinion on the Apocrypha? Many theologians think these missing books should form part of Bible.
In 1613 the KJV translators removed the apocrypha. I hold to that.
Compare for yourself. Read Gen 22 through Isaac carrying the wood up the hill. Then read all 4 Gospel accounts of the path of the cross that Jesus was crucified. This works out perfectly in the KJV.
This isn’t so much an interpretation as it is plain English.
Since English is not the only language in the world, and keeping in mind that the English used today is not the same as the English of 400 years ago, we can read how other translators addressed Genesis 22. In the Spanish, Italian and French Bibles, you have, respectively, probar, provare and met a l’eprouve. Probar and provare are cognates (as is the English word prove) that mean to try, to prove or to test. Met a l’eprouve means to put to the test.
The funny thing is, this question of tempt vs test had been discussed before the KJV was written. Bede wrote about it. The conclusions drawn by those before it was written and after it was written is that that context matters and when tempt was used it meant test in context.
An honest person might consider English the international language of the world. There is not an air traffic control station that cannot have a functional ability to communicate in English if asked to to do.
Once again, I don’t base my interpretation of the Bible from what some other person, or group, has stated. I consider it. At this time in my understanding “tempt” is the best word.
Not in the early 17th century. It didn’t even exist as a language when the Bible was originally written, nor when the Greek and Latin translations were written.
Of course you do. What is the KJV after all?
The United Kingdom was spreading the word of God, via the KJV, throughout the world shortly after massive printing of the Bible.
What does this even mean?
That’s pretty cool, what are ya’ll thoughts?
2 Likes
It is interesting to see politicians putting some money where their mouth is. If you are going to ask the financially poor woman to carry her unborn baby to full term, it is nice to see that she will have some financial support.
1 Like
I absolutely support this policy.
Don’t like the idea of paying child support right away? Get married and raise the kid responsibly, or don’t make the new human in the first place.
Aside from supporting the mom in pregnancy being the right thing to do, the more immediate consequences might shape men’s behavior towards, well, more masculine behavior.
If a degenerate gets a girl pregnant today, in some cases he’ll have months to talk her into an abortion before any real consequence sets in for him. If the consequences are immediate, men will be aware of this and shape their behaviors accordingly.
The law should be a guide for the kind of society and culture we want.
5 Likes
I’m really surprised republicans came up with that. I hope it goes into effect.
I think the Republicans of today are shaping up into a pretty decent political party now that Generation X is moving to the helm. We are the bridge generation who are still connected to the traditional values that actually worked but also completely literate in technology.
The stuff that fooled our parents and grandparents isn’t as effective on us, and we are better at pointing out bullshit when we see it. There are more than four news channels now, and everyone has a HD video camera in their pocket that also allows them to communicate with everyone in society. I’m hoping this results in fewer people trying to bullshit other people and more people engaging in sincere civics, which includes rational debate.
Unfortunately, we’re not quite there yet, but I think we’re getting there.
I’m sure they’ll have just as much collecting it as they do now. It’s all bullshit to appear as if they are addressing the criticisms about not caring about babies. It won’t get people to stop having unprotected sex outside of marriage and it won’t encourage marriage. A woman already needs to identify the biological father to get welfare. Even if we assume these fathers are paying child support, being on the hook for an extra 9 months won’t discourage them if the 18 years they already are responsible for didn’t.
I’m glad we have someone here to advocate in favor of deadbeat dads, because I think it is important to see the contrasting argument.
As someone who raised the child of a deadbeat dad, I don’t find your argument compelling. Not even a little bit. I remain in favor of laws like this. Personal emotions aside, I simply don’t see the drawback to the proposed legislation.
I’d even be STRONGLY in favor of severe retroactive penalties all the way back to the month of conception for men who deny their fatherhood, but are later proven to be the father.
What’s the negative here?
You’re a scumbag.
That’s not answering the question, zecarlo.
What’s the negative to the proposed legislation? Are there bad outcomes in store for society if it passes?
Why don’t you stop being cute and explain how I am advocating for deadbeat fathers.