Pastors Leading the flock???)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

-----Original Message-----
From: ReedActs@aol.com <ReedActs@aol.com>
To: higher-fire@prairienet.org <higher-fire@prairienet.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: Pastors Leading the flock???)


Tim B4:
Call me crazy but that is in direct contradiction to the imfamous
"obey" doctrine.  Hence my point that Y'all have to either admit that
the verses were fudged or come up with some reason that they didn't put
in a QUALIFICATION of when it is OK to NOT OBEY.  It would have to be
here in this text to be valid, BTW.  Written anywhere else in the whole
Bible would only introduce a direct CONTRADICTION.  I don't care
(argumentatively speaking of course, I would like for you to see this
;-) if you agree with what I say above or not, it is an INESCAPABLE
logical FACT...

Skip:
1) 17th century usage differs from modern usage
2) obey/rule would just as easily translate to heed the advice of.  As a
King gives weight to his avisors opinions.  His decision is final, but
the advisors give counsel.  If he choses to ingnore their counsel, the
results are his burden.

  Mike:
Cool. I guess this means I don't have to throw away the Bible now because of
a direct contradiction.  Whew!!  :-)

Me:
No, but you DO have to admit that there is NO WAY that the word in this
passage means "obey"!!!  ;->  Don't pass over that point anyone.  The whole
point, and one that Skip agrees with is this:  The 'transaltors' used the
word 'obey' and that word carries a meaning that is not in line with the
original text.
;-D  I KNOW there is no contradiction in the Greek text, but as it is
written, if the word "obey" is the proper one and has the meaning YOU and
others ascribe to it, there IS a direct contradiction in the KJV.  There are
more but I haven't the time.  ;-)

Luke 6:26
brotim@gte.net
Timothy Litteral
Let's chat on ICQ or NetMeeting
http://members.tripod.com/~trlitteral/