Ranger TP, thank you
Graybeard
Paul Gallina TN
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:18:03 -0800 "RangerTP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Sorry; but all it shows is that we are individuals, warts and all.
>And that
>God loves us anyway.
>EVERY LITTLE BIT OF ADVERSITY IS NOT OF THE DEVIL, DON'T GIVE HIM
>MORE
>CREDIT THAN HE IS DUE.
>How do we expand our minds or broaden our horizons without
>discussion.
>Based on what you have stated, there is no need for any of Pauls'
>epistles,
>so discard them or ignore them. But, please don't tell me there is no
>need
>to state my (our) beliefs (theology). Although, there is no reason,
>real or
>imagined, to get angry when someone states their ideas/beliefs. God
>has me
>where He has me. My walk with Him is beyond the walk of some, behind
>that
>of others and the same as whoever is left (mostly those who, like me,
>are
>slow learners). One of the ways to learn, and shown to be one of the
>best
>methods, is oration, to verbalize and then listen. From preachers to
>teachers to parents to, yes, congressmen/women. We learn by having
>discussions, by stating what we "think" we know. I may disagree with
>everything someone here says, but that does not mean I have not
>learned from
>them. I either add to what I already know or I reinforce what I know
>(by
>agreeing or disagreeing with what has been said).
>BUT DO NOT STOP ME FROM LEARNING AND THEREBY GROWING.
>I will not spend the rest of my life hibernating, isolated from the
>rest of
>the world.
>As my walk with Christ grows by discussing my theology with Him (thru
>prayer, bible study, listening to Him), so does my walk with my
>fellow
>Commanders grow by discussing theology with them. rangernet is a
>discussion
>medium. If not here, then where?
>PLEASE SPARE ME THE "CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG" MENTALITY.
>I do not believe in "us four and no more" or in being a pew warmer.
>I
>discuss/debate, some might say argue, with as many different sources
>as
>possible. That way I can be sure that what I believe is what I
>believe.
>Without adversity how do you know that what you stand for is what you
>are
>willing to die for. If my theology cannot stand up to assault, I
>might as
>well be a cult-member or an Atheist or a marshmallow or some such
>other.
>Christ bled for every one of us and He was without sin. He knew what
>He
>believed. He discussed it daily in the temple and elsewhere (has
>rangernet
>been around THAT long).
>OH, YEAH, HE WOULDN'TVE BEEN WELCOME, HE'S ALWAYS STATING HIS
>THEOLOGY.
>How much less can I expect of myself? I, for my sinful nature,
>DESERVE to
>die on the cross, He did not deserve the cross, but died there
>WILLINGLY.
>I MUST take up my cross DAILY and follow Him.
>
>'Nuf said, sorry for the ruffled feathers. No, I'm not. I will not
>back
>down in my walk with Christ, I must always seek to grow in Him (and,
>yes, my
>walk is my theology).
>
>RangerTP(or RangerWigWam to some)@bigfoot.com ~>8-P
>"A stiff-necked, gain-saying, bond-servant of Christ"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 5:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [RR] Baptism
>
>
>>Dear Scott:
>>Your so right on that one.
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Well:
>>>
>>> I guess I can't say anything without it turning into a mess.
>People we
>are
>>> debating theological idea's. Are you going to let the devil
>continue to
>>> have fun? My goodness!! I am getting so tired of having a
>difference of
>>> opinion become major points.
>>>
>>> Here is a major point.
>>>
>>> JESUS DIES ON THE CROSS TO SAVE THOSE WHO DIDN'T KNOW HIM SO THAT
>THEY
>>> WOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER AN ETERNAL HELL. THE FREE GIFT IS
>JESUS!!
>>>
>>> Enough said..
>>>
>>> Lets go back to playing Royal Rangers.
>>>
>>> Scott Tobman
>>> Indiana #22
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> > Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 2:45 AM
>>> > To: Soaring Golden Eagle
>>> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > Subject: Re: [RR] KJV? Was: Baptism ?
>>> >
>>> > dear Soaring Golden Eagle:
>>> > Amen to that brother. I rmember a gretting card that said "there
>is a
>>> > destiny that makes us brothers". I know thats not scriptural but
>all
>born
>>> > again beleivers that profess the name Jesus Christ on their lips
>are
>>> > brothers (or sisters) no matter what theirdenomination or
>doctrine that
>it
>>> > being the doctrine of Christ. I chose Assemblies because the
>church I
>go
>>> > to I feel loved and sense the presence of the Holy Spirit. Whats
>nice
>>> > about it is I only have to walk a few hundred yards to get there.
>I
>read
>>> > the KJV and modern versions to betteer understand the content of
>the
>>> > scripture. What throws my Buckaroos off is when I quote scripture
>from
>>> > memory in Kings English. I am glad that God has blessed me with
>the
>>> > ability to read Kings English and understand it.
>>> > Randall A. Hermanson OP#1
>>> >
>>> > Soaring Golden Eagle wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Brother Paul, I appreciate most of your comments on
>RangerNet. It
>>> > seems
>>> > that we may not be exactly on the same page on some
>things,
>though.
>>> >
>>> > At 08:49 PM 1/30/99 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul
>Gallina)
>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > We speak English. The King James is the inerrant
>inspired
>>> > infallible
>>> > >word of God for English speaking people.
>>> >
>>> > I believe that the Holy Bible, as inspired by the Holy
>Spirit and
>>> > written
>>> > in its original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic,
>Chaldee), is
>>> > inerrant
>>> > and infallible.
>>> >
>>> > I believe that God has throughout history used imperfect
>vessels
>to
>>> > record,
>>> > copy, translate, and preserve His Word. Even a donkey can
>prophesy
>>> > correctly. Prophesying is no guarantee of salvation,
>either
>(search
>>> > the
>>> > Scriptures yourself and see). The manuscripts of the Holy
>Bible
>that
>>> > we
>>> > have available to us differ in details due to scribal
>copying
>>> > mistakes.
>>> > This may be unsettling to many, but it is undeniable.
>Fortunately,
>>> > these
>>> > transcription errors are generally easily corrected by
>comparing
>>> > different
>>> > manuscripts and considering the context. Scholars today
>tend to
>hold
>>> > to one
>>> > of three different views on what the text of the New
>Testament in
>>> > its
>>> > original Greek form was. The good news about these three
>views is
>>> > that they
>>> > are VERY close together, and ALL AGREE on the basis of our
>salvation
>>> >
>>> > through Jesus Christ and His shed blood. Indeed, the
>insignificant
>>> > nature
>>> > of these variations actually serve to confirm the
>reliability of
>the
>>> >
>>> > transcription of Scripture through time, and show much
>greater
>>> > reliability
>>> > than other works of literature.
>>> >
>>> > The KJV is a generally trustworthy and important
>translation
>which
>>> > has
>>> > great historical value, but I believe the translators
>"missed it"
>in
>>> > a few
>>> > places. Actually, the original publication of the KJV in
>1611 was
>>> > riddled
>>> > with errors and was edited in a manner that would be
>considered
>>> > sloppy by
>>> > current publishing standards. There was one infamous early
>edition
>>> > that was
>>> > called "The Adulterer's Bible" by some, because a typo
>apparently
>>> > left out
>>> > a "not" in the 10 Commandments. Oops. Later editions of the
>KJV
>were
>>> > better.
>>> >
>>> > Although there were some who objected to the KJV when it
>was
>first
>>> > released
>>> > because it was in contemporary common English of that time
>(although
>>> > a
>>> > little archaic in some of its language), and because it was
>new,
>it
>>> > eventually became widely used, accepted, and trusted.
>>> >
>>> > A lot has happened to the English language in the four
>centuries
>>> > since work
>>> > began on the KJV. Spellings changed. Rules of grammar
>changed,
>not
>>> > only in
>>> > word endings, but in usage and word order. Some words
>changed so
>>> > drastically in meaning as to mean the opposite of what
>they
>started
>>> > out
>>> > meaning. The English of the KJV is definitely not the same
>dialect
>>> > as any
>>> > living dialect of English used on the Earth today, except
>for a
>few
>>> > isolated uses in church and perhaps among some Amish
>people.
>English
>>> > is
>>> > only understood by about 10% of the Earth's population.
>(Mandarin
>is
>>> > the
>>> > most widely understood language, and there are over 6500
>languages
>>> > spoken
>>> > today). Of the people who understand English today, most of
>them
>>> > would have
>>> > great difficulty understanding KJV English. Thank God for
>the
>many
>>> > good
>>> > modern English translations that we have! What concerns me
>is
>that
>>> > there
>>> > are so many who have no Bible in their language, yet.
>>> >
>>> > > The Greek Orthodox ( not real
>>> > >familiar with it ) is worthless for us as would a Russian
>or
>Latin
>>> > Bible
>>> > >be.
>>> >
>>> > That is why it is so important that we continue supporting
>those
>who
>>> >
>>> > translate the Holy Bible into other languages, so that
>those who
>are
>>> > to be
>>> > saved may hear the Gospel in their own language.
>>> >
>>> > > The Catholic Bible is particularly distasteful to
>>> > Evangelicalism as it
>>> > >contains several spurious books ( Tolbit, Bel and the
>Dragon et.
>>> > al. )
>>> > >from which many of the heresies of Roman Catholicism
>come.
>>> >
>>> > I used to think that, but the Holy Spirit corrected me.
>>> >
>>> > Actually, the Apocrypha is not the hotbed of heresy you
>think.
>>> > Indeed, it
>>> > is helpful in understanding the 66 books of the Old and
>New
>>> > Testaments. I
>>> > would rank the Apocrypha as recommended reading - along
>side
>>> > contemporary
>>> > Christian books. I may not consider them as inspired in the
>same
>way
>>> > as the
>>> > 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, but they are worth
>reading
>>> > and
>>> > preserving. I have even heard some rather respected
>Evangelical
>>> > pastors
>>> > quote from a part of the Apocrypha on occasion in the
>process of
>>> > explaining
>>> > some history that helped set the background for whatever
>they
>were
>>> > teaching on.
>>> >
>>> > > Plus if you
>>> > >disagree with any of these teachings from Rome you are
>cursed
>and
>>> > on the
>>> > >way to Hell. I didn't say that the Pope ( who speaks in
>the
>place
>>> > of God
>>> > >) did.
>>> >
>>> > Some died-in-the-wool AG Pentecostals are going to be
>surprised
>>> > (pleasantly, I hope) when they get to Heaven to find Roman
>Catholics
>>> > there.
>>> > I'm sure the surprise may be mutual. The Bible never
>preaches
>>> > anywhere that
>>> > you have to agree with all of a certain set of church
>doctrines
>(be
>>> > they
>>> > Roman Catholic catechism or the 17 truths of the Assemblies
>of
>God)
>>> > to be
>>> > saved. No, all you have to do is confess with your mouth
>that
>Jesus
>>> > is Lord
>>> > and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the
>dead, and
>you
>>> > will
>>> > be saved. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will
>be
>saved.
>>> > Now, I
>>> > do believe that sound doctrine is important, but your
>salvation
>>> > doesn't
>>> > rest on mental assent to 100% correct teaching or on your
>favorite
>>> > Bible
>>> > translation.
>>> >
>>> > I realize that there are a few people who consider the KJV
>the
>only
>>> > valid
>>> > English Bible. I encourage them to get the KJV Bible out,
>read it
>>> > regularly, and heed what it says. As for me and my
>household, we
>>> > will take
>>> > advantage of the NKJV, NIV, and other great modern
>translations.
>I
>>> > also
>>> > read out of my Greek and Hebrew Bibles.
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> >
>>> > Michael Paul Johnson aka Soaring Golden Eagle
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >
>>> > <http://eBible.org/mpj> Rocky Mountain Outpost 207 New
>Creation
>>> > Church
>>> > Jesus Christ is Lord! If Jesus came back today, would you
>be
>READY?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______
>>> > To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to
>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > "Eat the hay & spit out the sticks!" RTKB&G4JC!
>>> > Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><http://rangernet.org>
>>> >
>>> _______
>>> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Eat the hay & spit out the sticks!" RTKB&G4JC!
>>> Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rangernet.org
>>
>>_______
>> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Eat the hay & spit out the sticks!" RTKB&G4JC!
>> Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rangernet.org
>>
>>
>
>_______
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Eat the hay & spit out the sticks!" RTKB&G4JC!
> Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rangernet.org
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Eat the hay & spit out the sticks!" RTKB&G4JC!
Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rangernet.org
