|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ MATT ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 5 · Found: 128 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 9/13/12 5:18 PM |
| Matt | |  |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Mike wrote:
Correct about changing hearts, not correct about it not mattering who is elected.
GW Bush issued an executive order in his first week in office banning federal funding for "international family planning organizations that perform abortions or offer abortion counseling." Planned Parenthood, whose business is destruction of life, is among them.
Obama lifted the ban his first week.
Reagan was the first to ban the funding, which ban was continued by Bush 1, but Clinton lifted the ban in his first week in office.
So it certainly does matter who is voted into office, because actual lives matter. By this practice it is only foreign lives that actually matter - not American!
 |
|
|
| 10/25/10 12:02 PM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
The authorisation of a king 400 years ago adds as much logical or academic weight as if Obama was to endorse one today, and the fact that people make an appeal to it being the "Authorised Version" is, frankly, laughable.The Textus Receptus is not without merit, but it is inferior to Westcott/Hort's text, let alone modern ones. Are you aware that the TR was first produced using only the six manuscripts could be scrounged together in a short amount of time? That it had gaps in the book of Revelation? That the TR you have now has undergone several emendations since it was first produced? How about that the TR differs from the actual majority text on 1800+ occasions, around 1000 of those differences translatable? |
|
|
| 10/25/10 9:09 AM |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Wow, do you need a tin-foil hat to join this conversation as well? The world would not end if the KJV disappeared, and the fact that it was authorised by a British king is not evidence that it is the only or supreme version authorised by the King of kings."...but the very words and language which you call archaic is that which makes the KJV more accurate than any other translations which use the contemporary English. The fact is, no one ever spoke KJV English. It's a Bible language created for Scriptural accuracy." Really? I thought it was based on a rushed-out version of the Greek manuscripts that had parts of Revelation missing. Silly me, what are historical facts when you have unprovable conjecture. I also thought that when the books of the NT were written, they were written using the common (koine Greek = common Greek) language of the time, not an archaic dialect that would have impeded the common person from understanding. However, the KJV had phrases in it that were archaic even when it was written, completely contrary to the practice of the apostles. And yet people desire to enforce it upon people 400 years later, when the language is even further removed from common usage? |
|
|
|
| Jump to Page : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/4/14 10:05 AM
