Memorial Day

"LW(Bill)HughesIII" > wrote in message
...
> http://billhughes.com/memorial.htm
>
>
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)

Budd Cochran wrote:

> 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.

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

--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

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" > wrote in message
...
> Budd Cochran wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder children.
> How do you feel about that?
>
> --
>
> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>
> Aratzio
> Spooge
> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
> Vince
> Art Deco
> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
> Johnny Dollar
> Kevin Cannon
> yourfriend
> Fred Hall

Budd Cochran wrote:
> What the heck are you talking about?

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

> 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.

Does that mention children?

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

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).

> 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.

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.

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

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.

> 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

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.

> "I" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder children.
>> How do you feel about that?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>
>> Aratzio
>> Spooge
>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>> Vince
>> Art Deco
>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>> Johnny Dollar
>> Kevin Cannon
>> yourfriend
>> Fred Hall
>
>


--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

The Geneva Bible: http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html

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" > wrote in message
...
> Budd Cochran wrote:
>> What the heck are you talking about?
>
> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>
>> 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.
>
> Does that mention children?
>
>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>
> 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).
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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
>
> 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.
>
>> "I" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>
>>> Aratzio
>>> Spooge
>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>> Vince
>>> Art Deco
>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>> Johnny Dollar
>>> Kevin Cannon
>>> yourfriend
>>> Fred Hall
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>
> Aratzio
> Spooge
> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
> Vince
> Art Deco
> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
> Johnny Dollar
> Kevin Cannon
> yourfriend
> Fred Hall

On May 31, 5:04*pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>
> 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" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Budd Cochran wrote:
> >> What the heck are you talking about?
>
> > I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Does that mention children?
>
> >> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
> >> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>
> > 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).
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> >> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>
> > 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.

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 www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.

Budd

"Larry" > wrote in message
...
On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>
> 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" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Budd Cochran wrote:
> >> What the heck are you talking about?
>
> > I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Does that mention children?
>
> >> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
> >> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>
> > 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).
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> >> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>
> > 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.
>
> >> 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
>
> > 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.
>
> >> "I" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>
> >>>> 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.
> >>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
> >>> children. How do you feel about that?
>
> >>> --
>
> >>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>
> >>> Aratzio
> >>> Spooge
> >>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
> >>> Vince
> >>> Art Deco
> >>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
> >>> Johnny Dollar
> >>> Kevin Cannon
> >>> yourfriend
> >>> Fred Hall
>
> > --
>
> > Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>
> > Aratzio
> > Spooge
> > Mad As A Box Of Frogs
> > Vince
> > Art Deco
> > Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
> > Johnny Dollar
> > Kevin Cannon
> > yourfriend
> > Fred Hall

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

Budd Cochran wrote:
> The Geneva Bible: http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>
> According to the article appears is neither more accruate or less accurate
> than the KJV or the NKJV, which I use.

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.

> 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)?

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.

> The Old Testament also condoned the stoning of disobedient children

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.

> ... do
> you? I don't and no true teacher of the Scriptures does.

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

> Doesn't sound like you have to me.

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

> Mat. 7:5

Matthew 6:5.

> Budd
>
> "I" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>
>>> 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.
>> Does that mention children?
>>
>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>> 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).
>>
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>> 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.
>>
>>> 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
>> 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.
>>
>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>
>>>> Aratzio
>>>> Spooge
>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>> Vince
>>>> Art Deco
>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>> yourfriend
>>>> Fred Hall
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>
>> Aratzio
>> Spooge
>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>> Vince
>> Art Deco
>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>> Johnny Dollar
>> Kevin Cannon
>> yourfriend
>> Fred Hall
>
>


--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

Larry wrote:
> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>
>> 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" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>> 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.
>>> Does that mention children?
>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>> 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).
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>> 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.
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>> Spooge
>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>> Fred Hall
>>> --
>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>> Aratzio
>>> Spooge
>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>> Vince
>>> Art Deco
>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>> Johnny Dollar
>>> Kevin Cannon
>>> yourfriend
>>> Fred Hall
>
> I thought this was a jeep group not a religious forum;

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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

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.

> 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

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

--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall

Budd Cochran wrote:
> You're right, it is a jeep group,

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.

> but someone chose to cause a religious
> argument over the quote used in the post of another.

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?

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

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

> 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.

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.

> Check www.aig.org or www.gotquestions.org for answers to your claim.
>
> Budd

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:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ble/?hpt=hp_c1


> "Larry" > wrote in message
> ...
> On May 31, 5:04 pm, "Budd Cochran" > wrote:
>> The Geneva Bible:http://www.gotquestions.org/Geneva-Bible.html
>>
>> 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" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>> What the heck are you talking about?
>>> I'm talking about the Holy Bible (in its multiple iterations).
>>>> 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.
>>> Does that mention children?
>>>> But, no matter, the Bible does not condone murder of anyone and allows
>>>> killing only in self-defense or in time of war.
>>> 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).
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>>> If you believe otherwise, you do not know the Bible.
>>> 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.
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> "I" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Budd Cochran wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Of course the Holy Bible also showers praise on those who murder
>>>>> children. How do you feel about that?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>>>> Aratzio
>>>>> Spooge
>>>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>>>> Vince
>>>>> Art Deco
>>>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>>>> Johnny Dollar
>>>>> Kevin Cannon
>>>>> yourfriend
>>>>> Fred Hall
>>> --
>>> Greg's wrong guesses so far:
>>> Aratzio
>>> Spooge
>>> Mad As A Box Of Frogs
>>> Vince
>>> Art Deco
>>> Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
>>> Johnny Dollar
>>> Kevin Cannon
>>> yourfriend
>>> Fred Hall
>
> 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
>
>
>


--

Greg's wrong guesses so far:

Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall