IDidntDoIt
-
Content Count
530 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by IDidntDoIt
-
-
Noahsdad,
With no disrespect to you, I've also run into the "slam-dunk" approach to declaring the simplest of solutions to a complex issue. I LIKE the KJV. There is some of the most beautiful writing in the entire English language found in the KJV. I read it regularly. However, I'm not BLIND to the other issues, either.
The undeniable facts are:
Jesus did NOT speak 1611 English. The prominent languages of his day were Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. There were others, for sure, but those were the most commonly used ones in Israel at the time of Christ.
I have seen and read 1611 verbiage. It is DIFFERENT FROM what is now accepted as the King James Version of the Bible. It has phrasing, terms, spellings, grammar and syntax that are foreign to people in this nation who read and speak an Americanized version of English. I have a graduate degree in a communications field, and understand that there is a difference between simply stating a few facts and having someone walk away from the process with real understanding of the original idea.
If people are to understand what He taught there are a couple of options. First is to learn koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, get the oldest versions of the original texts possible (NO ONE has claimed to have the originals, so the only things extant are copies of the originals which were transcribed by hand as Gutenberg had not come to life at that time), and read those. The problem with this approach is that it is not very likely a person unconverted to Christianity is going to go to the trouble to learn those languages. As a matter of fact, it is not even likely that most Christians, passionate believers they may be, are going to engage in the discipline of learning those languages. In fact, it is not even likely that many preachers are going to engage in the discipline of learning the languages. So, for most followers of Christ, that is not a viable option.
The next undeniable fact is that if people are not going to learn the originals, then someone must translate from the oldest copies and do the hard work of trying to get into the writer's head and ACCURATELY bring those ideas, concepts, issues, statements and meanings into a language that has a different grammatical structure, a different syntax, and changes over time.
As much as I wish it were not so, there are people today whose reading and cognitive skills do not add up to an IQ of 140+. They have trouble reading and understanding common Americanized street language. I work with juveniles all day. Yesterday, I had one of my brighter juveniles in my office because he had done something wrong. I conducted a little experiment with him and had him read a copy of his conditions of probation. I was appalled at his inability to articulate the words on that paper, much less understand their meanings. The words in that document are modern common-use language terms and structures that are designed to be straight forward and easy to comprehend. If he could not understand simple sentences and words designed for a seventh-grade reading level, how on earth would you expect him to comprehend the meaning of "...shall not prevent them which are asleep...?" How would you expect him to follow the compound complex sentence structure of Pauline discourse as related in the KJV?
I've studied the KJV extensively, have bible college and seminary degrees, and some work on a doctorate in an education field, have about a 2200 volume library for exegeting the Scripture, and there are STILL some passages that are a bit vague, and whose meanings are a bit fuzzy. With all the education I have, and the decades I have poured into the study of the Scripture, I still need all the help I can get to understand some of the finer points of the Bible. I examine multiple viewpoints, try to comprehend their views and understand their points before ever taking a position on issues.
There are still times when I pull out my KJV and read a passage, ponder it's meaning and need to consult an interlinear bible, multiple translations, a Greek or Hebrew concordance, a bible encyclopedia, a bible dictionary, a couple of theological dictionaries of either the New Testament or Old Testament, consult Greek or Hebrew grammars, consult Bullingers classic work on Figures of Speech in the Bible before I ever get to my exegetical commentaries, my expository commentaries, my devotional commentaries or my theology texts.
I know beyond question that the typical Christian layperson cannot afford either the monetary investment or the time required to make this sort of study of the Scripture. So, what are they to do? Simply rely on something that is obscure to them? Read something they do NOT understand? That is an issue even the Catholic church struggled with for over 1000 years before they decided to conduct mass in the local languages vs using the Latin which, undeniably, NOBODY in the congregation understood. The principle which actually applied is where Paul stated he would rather speak a very few words that were understandable than 10,000 words that were gibberish to the listeners. That is also the principle that has driven many biblical Greek and Hebrew scholars to come up with new translations. They understood that the common man of the street was not erudite, sophisticated and multi-lingual. Their efforts were to take this incredible story of the Gospel and publish it so that even the simple could understand it, respond to it and apply it to their lives.
Another problem is that English as we speak it is not the same as it was 400 years ago. English is what is known as a live language, meaning that it goes through an evolutionary process and changes. We talk, read and write differently than people did 400 years ago. Those of this generation who may not be our most skilled communicators have difficulty understanding what we commonly use today. They have trouble with what was used 400 years ago. They often do not understand it. The people who have translated the newer versions are making efforts to bridge not only that gap, but the gap back to the original languages, because archeological finds in the holy land are coming up with older fragments of copies of the original documents. Why is that significant? Because of the degrading nature of repeated copying. The more generations of copies of copies of copies, the more liklihood there was a transcription error. To get beyond the transcription errors, translators want the oldest fragments available to study, precisely because they are more likely to have fewer transcription errors. There are many, many more copies, many of them significantly older than there were available to King Jim's group of translators. Translators today have documents that were not know to exist in King James' day, and not available to his scholars.
Now, if what you want to address relates to translation methodologies, there is MUCH more to the debate that can be added.
However, if your interest is to assassinate the character of those who have translated versions like the NIV, then, sir, you and I have a debate of another matter entirely. I personally know and have studied under some of the men who were on the committee Zondervan hired to produce the NIV. I know of their character, their expertise in the biblical languages, the linguistic problems involved, their efforts, and their processes to come up with something to communicate the Gospel to this population. I know that they are men of impeccable character and outstanding intellectual accomplishments. I know they would never lend their names to any process that would be of a corrupt nature. I know as well, they would never compromise on orthodox Christian doctrine. These are men who are by nature very deliberate about what they say, what they do not say, and are not given to making statements that cannot be backed up with reliable documentation of reputable scholars. They are also very precise with positions they take on issues. They are also two of the most Godly men I have ever met in my life.
Is the NIV perfect? NO IT IS NOT, NEITHER IS THE KJV, NKJV, Phillips, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, Vulgate, Douay, the Guttenberg, or any other version that has ever been produced.
That is precisely why biblical scholars keep working to help us all better understand what was said, why it was said, the context in which it was said, and how we can take that knowledge and apply it to this generation so that they best understand as much of it as possible. The point of the whole process??? to give sinners a credible presentation of the Gospel.
We are trying to communicate the message of the Gospel to the lost and train up the converted into disciples. That process requires multiple efforts to help them understand and refocus themselves to the message. Often, we, as ministers will make efforts to state an issue, honestly discover that our effort, made as clearly as we know how to do so, will not be correctly understood by someone, so we will try from a different perspective to reach some degree of precision in oour communication with those who did not understand in the first place.
That is exactly what some of those who are providing newer translations are attempting. If we want to condemn them for the efforts at newer translation, then maybe we'd better look in a mirror pretty hard, listen to some of our sermons and see if we may not be guilty of the very things we are accusing the translators of.
Yes, some newer translations are theologically biased, and that is a very bad thing. But most represent the honest efforts of good men and can be useful in getting at the communication issues.
-
Why is it that we approach the matter of preaching in dichotomous ways... either/or kind of thinking. Why not both/and kinds of thinking? What about letting the text, the congregation and the essential nature of the message determine the style of delivery?
For example, if a man is preaching on the Fourth Man in the Fiery Furnace, or Isaiah's Vision of God, or the Resurrection of Christ, one might expect there to be a bit more bombastic style than if he were preaching on the begats of Numbers or the Levitical passages describing the details of the construction of either the Tabernacle or the Temple as revealed in the historical books.
I believe preachers who limit themselves to one particular style really do a disservice to their congregations. What I believe is that the Bible text, the thrust of the message and the audience should be factors weighed together to determine style. For instance, it would be a foolish preacher who would speak in the same way to a congregation of 5 year olds as he would to a camp-meeting crowd... or the same way to a group of theologians as to new converts.
Sermons have multiple types of content. One is intellectual content. Hopefully, a preacher will find content that is compatible wiht the congregation to which he is ministering. Another is the emotional content. Let's face it folks, the Bible is a book of LIFE. It speaks about many different things. Some delicate issues must be approached with measured speech, measured tones, deliberately slowed pacing, among other "low key" speech devices. Other matters are very high impact issues that because of their very nature are very emotional and to be delivered appropriately must have a high amount of energy output. The preacher who does not understand this is not giving deference to the message itself.
It is not so much that one method is better than another, as it is that they have different uses and applications. The secret is knowing when to do what and understanding why it needs to be that way.
Preaching is best understood as a man who has become saturated with his message, understands the thrust of the writer, understands the current setting and people, and brings the thrust of the original writer across to that current setting and people.
Effective preaching includes a feedback cycle. More than once illustrations have either fired, prefired, backfired, or not fired. Wise is the preacher who has prepared enough material that when he sees expressions on faces revealing that he needs to take another run at this, he is able to do so.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that flexibility based on the thrust of the message, the context of the audience and other factors is what is best.
-
The focus of this thread reminds me of the crotchety old man who was praying for his pastor:
"God, you keep 'im humble, we'll keep 'im poor."
-
Is everybody suggesting that REV is a dudette?
-
HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!!!
-
-
Well,
The out-of- State landowner, quoted in the article did not tell the truth. But, that is not surprising:
First off, he did not tell the newspaper that this land is landlocked.
Secondly, he did not tell the truth about the County condemning because the County has never contacted him.
Thirdly, I have never heard his name before that article.
Fourthly, he has never spoken to me or any elected official
Fifthly, he has never spoken to any appointed County official.
Sixthly, he took advantage of a newspaper reporter who is somewhat new and has not had an opportunity to familiarize herself with the Airport project.
Seventhly, he may feel like his land is worth considerably more than the appraised amount, but he did not tell the tax assessors office that when the land was being taxed.
Eightthly; he did not make a counter offer.
And on and on.
Jerry S
I think many here know I am in the process of initiating some accountability checks on the BOC and those who were elected in the past election. I'm pretty close to complete conclusion on those matters, and my opinions are written in another thread, so I will not readdress them here. I would like to limit my comments to what Chairman has said, particularly in relation to some of Cherokeewoman's responses. Particularly, I'd like to focus on the FACTS, CLAIMS, EVIDENCE and CREDIBILITY issues presented here.
In response to the "conclusions" CherokeeWoman presented...
Firstly... It would not be necessary for Chairman to have any contact with the landowner to determine whether the land is landlocked or not. All he would have to do is take a GLANCE at a map... It is either factual that the land is landlocked (a particular condition that describes accessibility or the lack of it) or not, regardless of who the landowner is.
Secondly... Chairman would be the person with the best access to whether the county had contacted the man or not. All county personnel follow a chain of command that leads to his desk. It would be a very easy thing for him to verify this as fact or fantasy. I believe the Chairman, and do not think he would deliberately lie about something so easily verified. If you have factual data that contradicts Chairman, then come out with the facts. If not, then please, do not make such railing accusations by calling the man a liar without the evidence to substantiate the claim.
Thirdly... Again, what connection is there between the ability to ferret out facts about a piece of property, and the fact that there had been no contact with the property owner. The facts about the property are a matter of public record. I seriously doubt that Chairman is the one making all the contacts personally. I would certainly hope he manages his time more effectively than that. Other county personnel can certainly be deputized to make bona fide offers and close them, with a simple brief report sent to the Chairman. I for one, would think he has more on his plate to take care of than personally conducting INITIAL negotiations with property owners. I could well understand that he may wish to engage the process when things do not go as he wants them to, but it would be a discretionary matter best left to him as to when and how to engage personally.
Fourthly... Again, this is something the Chairman has the ability to determine factually. I read this as nothing more than a statement of fact. If you have evicence the claim is false, put the evidence on the table for all to see. If not, your credibility would be raised significantly if you withdrew the unsubstantiated claim that Chairman lied.
Fifthly... Again, this is something the Chairman has the ability to determine factually. I read this as nothing more than a statement of fact. If you have evicence the claim is false, put the evidence on the table for all to see. If not, your credibility would be raised significantly if you withdrew the unsubstantiated claim that Chairman lied.
Sixthly... This is a conclusion Chairman has made. This may be correct or may not be correct. I have not seen the article in question, so I do not have the ability to assess this. FROM PURE CONJECTURE, I would hope that Chairman made this conclusion based on false statements made in the article. If that is the case, it would be easy to determine simply by fact checking. If she did not make herself aware of the airport situation before writing an article on it, perhaps her editor needs to be contacted for failing to do fact checking. It would really be hard for me to assume the Chairman, given his role and familiarity with the airport project, would make statements like this without good and sufficient cause. He would seem to me to have a great deal of credibility when it comes to making this particular conclusion. Again, the basis to refute the claim is to present bona fide evidence to the contrary. The best source of contrary evidence would obviously come from the reporter. If she has the evidence to vindicate her statements, then simply put it on the table. Until I see that evidence, I'm inclined to give the Chairman a break here, and accept his conclusion.
Seventhly... The value of a piece of property is exactly what a BUYER is willing to pay for it at closing. The County is a potential buyer. They have made an offer. If he does not like the offer, MAKE A COUNTER OFFER!!!!!!!!!! DUH!!!!
Eightly... See Seventhly...
As to the use of eminen domain, I do not get from Chariman's post that the BOC is ready to invoke that power. This is the negotiation stage of the transaction. Negotiation implies interaction, response. To date there has been no response. Let the man respond, let the BOC assess the response, and if reasonable, accept it. If the man is trying to commit extortion by demanding unreasonable prices, then let the eminent domain proceedings begin.
At this point, I think we just need to take a deep breath, let the process continue, and let the parties involved make good faith efforts to negotiate until either a acceptance or impasse is reached. At that point, then eminent domain is a consideration. What sounds to me like has happened, is the BOC has made an INITIAL offer. Now it is the property owner's turn to make a counter proposal. Usually people start with low-ball vs. high-ball numbers. They each give in some until an acceptable middle ground is reached that is acceptable to both parties, or until one party is unwilling to negotiate any further in good faith. At that point there is either a sale, or eminent domain proceedings begin.
The interests of the County are to get the land as cheaply as possible. They also have an obligation to be fair in the process. If not, they will not occupy their chairs for an extended period of time -- voters will not let them.
Eminent domain is a very serious, matter that cannot be exercised without significant consequences. It is a matter that is not ever to be used lightly or callously or as an initial ploy. Politicians know that the exercise of eminent domain without significant justification will lead to voter backlash, and create more headaches than it will solve.
The exercise of raw power is similar to a person having a bank of pennies. Each time power is exercised without the consent of the governed, a penny or more is taken from the bank. Ultimately, if more pennies are not deposited and withdrawals continue, the power bank is bankrupt and disruption occurs.
-
It's kind of funny how the really profound things are so simple.
The essence of this reminds me of the acrostic I learned as a child in Sunday School that I have never been able to get away from or beyond:
Jesus first
Others second
Yourself last
-
Well, lets see if we can get back to the commercial/industrial focus here.
No offense to the firemen, and no ill will intended. I can appreciate that there are several isues of concern to all segments of this county.
As some of you will notice, I've not had a whole lot to say during the last few days here. I'd like to explain something else that has been happening, however. Chairman has responded to me via PM on several of the issues I have raised. I think I understand now why he chose that medium on certain aspects of these questions, and can appreciate that he may be a bit hesitant to just throw everything to the table. That's not a fault, folks, it's called discretion.
I sincerely appreciate his responses. Not everything he said answered all my questions, certainly. However, in the ongoing conversation via PM & email, I'm learning some things that indicate some things are happening that most people probably did not know about... I certainly did not. Those things are more structural and strategic than anything I've seen so far. While I do not have all the answers I wanted (the fact may be that there may not be answers to some of the issues I raised because of things beyond the control of the BOC) I certainly see some progress that I endorse, and appreciate on the part of the Chairman and the BOC.
I know this may seem like I'm playing "Ring Around the Rosie," but after hearing the things Chairman addressed to me, I do NOT feel comfortable making public disclosure of the details. I have asked Chairman to make some of this known, and I believe he is in the process of trying to set up a structured response that will be available to everyone of the matters that are relevant and publishable.
Part of the dilemma has to do with the zoning that is already in place in Paulding County. In some respects, the BOC is trying to fight a battle with it's hands tied behind it's back. There are issues they do not control... Issues I did not have in focus. I must say, that with this focus, my appreciation of the difficulty of their job has grown significantly.
All the above does NOT mean that now the problem has gone away. What it does mean is that the problem is worse than previously known to me, and that, while the BOC is not perfect, they are doing a credible job with the handicaps they face. Let me change that. I think it is not only a credible job, but an admirable job.
Are there still unresolved issues? OF COURSE there are. However, as far as the essential matter I had in focus when I started this thread, that of whether the newly elected members of the BOC were making appropriate steps to fulfill their campaign goals of bringing commercial/industrial businesses to the county for the purpose of changing the tax base from almost solely residential to at least a shared base between business and residential, I now believe the BOC is doing a credible job of keeping their promises within the bounds of what is possible. At least now I have a more clear understanding of why so much development is taking place, and I understand some of the steps the BOC is taking to address matters as much and as quickly as they can. I believe at this point, that their focus is in the right direction. I just wish it were possible to change some of the "landmarks" they must negotiate to get through these troubled waters.
I encourage each of you who have kindly responded to this thread to continue to follow this matter, and note your observations and feelings about the situation. I believe the Chairman and the BOC are interested in all of our concerns, and will make appropriate efforts to resolve what they can on a prioritized basis. Will each of us always agree with their priorities, strategies, and tactics? I hardly think so... probably because there is a diversity of viewpoints in this county, and a competition for limited resources. However, can and should we support and honor their efforts? In most cases, unreservedly so. I do think that at a minimum, after hearing from the Chairman, we are on the same page in many respects. And, who knows, perhaps the rest of the differences can be at least partially explained by the fact that the Chairdude had to settle for an education from that farm school on the plains of East Alabama, while I had the exquisite privilege of some schooling at LSU on the bayou, and could consume some of that ragin' cajun cuisine that I have come to love so dearly...
-
One of the things many do not understand about pride is that it has both an upside and a downside.
Usually we think the person smitten with excessive pride is the one who goes about boasting all the time about matters related to himself.
The more hidden part of pride is the person who continually puts him(her)self down.
Pride, properly understood is pre-occupation with self. If my focus is primarily on myself, whether it is positive or negative, it is pride at work. What Jesus is trying to do in the SOM is to get us focused on God, changing our focus from temporal to eternal things; from "us four and no more" to the needs of others.
This also has spillover effects in the area of mental health. One of the primary means to identify sociopaths and psychopaths is to determine whether the person can even perceive the feelings, thoughts, wants, needs of others.
-
Freebird.
You have struck the core of Christianity.
The Magna Carta of the Kingdom of God is generally regarded as the Sermon on the Mount. The heart of the SOM is the Beatitudes. The first Beatitude is, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." The picture Jesus' language gives here is that of utter destitution when considering personal attributes that are capable of securing God's favor and blessing.
Multiple biblical scholars have interpreted this to mean that the person who is poor in spirit is the one who realizes that he is morally, spiritually bankrupt in regard to his own resources, and has no hope within himself. He realizes he has failed God's law, and is deserving of the judgment of God. He realizes that there is nothing in his past that he can offer to appease the wrath of this Terrible God he has encountered. He realizes he does not have the potential of satisfying the demands of God's justice and holiness. He also realizes there is nothing he is currently doing that will justify the mercy and grace of God. He has come to the end of himself and realizes his help must come from outside himself -- from One greater than himself.
This is what happens when a person sees God and becomes aware of just Who He is. Isaiah's vision of God (Isaiah 6) is an example of what happens when human flesh gets a glimpse of the Almighty. Isaiah said "5Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Isaiah had seen a Majestic Splendor, a Divine Effulgence, a Holy, Awesome God Who was impossible to apprehend. His first reaction was to consider the mis-match between this Majestic Holiness and himself. That is the typical reaction when someone encounters this Divine Presence. There is an overwhelming sense of inadequacy, a sense that the very best I have to offer is not sufficient to please this Terrible God into Whose Presence I have come. There is that deafening silence that comes upon us as we encounter His Glorious Fullness that leads us to understand that He is so great and exalted that we could never offer acceptable sacrifices to Him. Our resources -- financial, real, capital, relational, educational, social, intellectual -- ALL are inadequate.
Many biblical scholars teach that Jesus was actually describing the attributes of character that are necessary to come into the Kingdom of God -- describing the first step to bringing God into one's life. It is this destitution of spirit that leads us to look for a way out. It is during this experience that we are motivated to consider means to resolving the conflict between ourselves and this Holy One. That is what leads us to become receptive to accepting the Grace of God, Redemption, and Reconciliation through the Risen Christ. It is to this contrite heart that God grants restoration, forgiveness and adoption into His Royal Family.
This is precisely why the Proud can never be part of the Kingdom of God. They want to earn their way into His Good Graces. But He cannot be bought or bartered. He is God, and none else can save. The only entrance into the Kingdom is through the free gift that we must freely acknowledge we need.
Freebird, I appreciate the fact that you have focused on this core element of coming into the Kingdom. It is precisely this humility, this coming to the end of oneself that will allow us to receive the King of Glory into our lives.
-
YES, there is hope.
That hope is to engage this BOC in conversation and hold them accountable for their promises. That is precisely the point of this thread.
-
The public highway is a very dangerous place. Sometimes errors in judgment are made. Kids often find out the hard way that you must not only control your own vehicle, but must deal with the decisions of other drivers, which is often much more difficult to handle.
My prayers are with these families in their losses.
Yes, I changed the content of this post after reading a new post that described the accident. My previous statements were not wrong, just not the place for them here. Perhaps another time, another situation...
-
Animal,
Glad your property went up in value. Mine has too. That's the good part.
The problem I'm trying to focus attention toward is the discovery of whether the BOC is doing what those elected last year campaigned on. It's called accountability. In order to establish accountability, there need to be some answers to some questions. Those questions have been posed. I'm waiting for answers.
Since I'm the only one on the thread who has made a statement about being busy, I suppose I'm the sniveller you're referring to. I don't think I asked your permission to start the thread, and don't think I particularly need to follow your "orders" to stop, so you'll pardon me if I don't just go away the first time you hiss at me. I voted in the last election, and am looking for evidence the people I voted for are keeping their promises. If that bothers you, I'm sorry you're bothered. I still intend to keep asking the questions, whether they meet your approval or not, because I think they are relevant.
As to whether the BOC is responsible for everything, no I do not believe that. As to whether the BOC is responsible for some things, ABSOLUTELY they are, and need to be called to account for decisions they make. That's what a representative democracy is about. When they cast a vote, they are representing me. If I don't like the way they cast votes, it is up to me to let them hear about it.
The things I am concerned about have to do with checking to see what they have done regarding bringing new business to this county as opposed to bringing new houses here. As Surepip mentioned earlier, there is a highly questionable decision they made about property next to the hospital. On a cursory look, it seems to go against what was promised in some campaigns last year. That decision may have cost this county several hundred JOBS. It certainly has cost the county TAX revenue. It may also have significantly deteriorated the level of medical services that will be available in this county. If you're not in the medical field, then the jobs will be of no consequence to you, unless the cave you referred to happens to be a house. In that case, that decision costs you more taxes. You might want to think about that the next time you go to the courthouse to pay what they demand of you. If you have excellent health, then the quality of medical care in this county is of no consequence to you. However, if you or a member of your family has a debilitating disease and needs medical care, then this decision has the capability of affecting your life. With these factors in play, I'd like an answer to the questions I've posed in earlier posts on this thread.
As to the Mayberry bit, you just must not have read what I wrote. I'm not looking for Mayberry. I'm looking for politicians to keep their word when it comes to bringing new business into this county. Appearances indicate they have paid less attention to that part of their job than to the part where some of them are reported to be likely to benefit financially by their decisions.
While I don't wish to make you uncomfortable by asking these questions, my need for answers happens to just #OURcurrentPRESIDENT your need to be comfortable. So I'll ask you to forgive me if I choose to deal with my need to know with a little more attention than I pay to your need to be comfortable. If this is a bit too uncomfortable for you, might I just suggest that Pubby has HUNDREDS of other threads on this website that you might find more entertaining, and to your liking. Enjoy to your heart's content while I scratch my information itch.
-
Kudos to Cynthia Tucker.
I think I'm about to faint and fall out, as to the source of an extremely well written article and a very solid philosophical/political/social position on a critical issue of the day, but reiterate, Kudos to Cynthia Tucker.
Kudos to TBAR, too, for putting it out here.
-
IDidntDoIt, if you admit that you do not know "the facts" then how can you, in good conscience, make this post and throw out accusations like this? I know that you are going from what you “see� as you drive down the road, but I think that you are misrepresenting what the BOC is attempting to do.
If you can spare two hours a month, I suggest that you watch the BOC meetings as they are replayed on Comcast 16. The viewing schedule is on the county web-site. I know that there are back room discussions that we do not get to hear, but at least it is a start.
Freebird,
Thanks for the response. I find it a bit puzzling that you say I'm making accusations -- so much so that I went and re-read my own posts on this thread. Re-reading them convinces me that most of what I'm doing is ASKING QUESTIONS about the BOC. I find no impropriety about that whatsoever. As to the issues of commissioners being in a position to benefit from their positions and decisions, I am going on what is known as "common knowledge," not certifiable proof. I have spoken to some of the former candidates about why they ran. I was told in no uncertain terms that the problem they perceived with the BOC is that most of them were in businesses that were either directly involved in the building industry (heating-air condition, electrical, building material supply) or in some spin-off business that benefitted from the building boom. I have also heard the same thing from multiple independent sources, some of whom I trust, others I do not know so well. Do I know that for fact? NO I DO NOT. However, if that is not the case (I am sure this is NOT the first time it has come up publicly) it would behoove the BOC members to simply state the facts. In the absence of their refutation of something that has the potential to be damaging to them IF NOT REFUTED, does it not make sense to believe there may be some truth to it? I just want to get the facts on the table.
As to misrepresenting what the BOC is doing, I hardly see how I am doing that since the whole thrust of my writing on this thread (post #1, #9, #23) has been to ASK QUESTIONS. If I am headed down the wrong trail, it would be really simple for some of the BOC members to simply come on to Pcom, and ANSWER the QUESTIONS. That way, their side of the issue could be brought right to the forefront, and the whole issue put to rest once and for all. What will be of significant concern to me will be if none of them feel the questions merit any response. If that is the case, then their failure to respond says more about the issue than the questions themselves.
To be very honest about it, when I started the first post, I really was wondering whether I was just totally out in left field and missing a significant amount of what is happening in Paulding County, or whether what I was observing and recalling really had the overtones that appeared. If what I see is correct, then YES I AM VERY DISTURBED ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOC. If the facts about the situation turn out to be as things appear on the surface, then I WILL FEEL I HAVE BEEN LIED TO BY MORE THAN ONE INCUMBENT WHO WAS RE-ELECTED LAST ELECTION. That was the reason I started this thread. I wanted to find out the facts. I wanted to publicly give them the opportunity to come to Pcom and address the situation of the appearance of things, and present data with which to answer the questions.
The questions are not an indictment, nor were they intended to be. They really are an earnest attempt to get at what is happening in this county and discover why.
The statements following the questions about what to do if the answers were unsatisfactory are an effort to say to the BOC, "I want to know the facts, and if the answers are inappropriate, I'm prepared to help put things on the right track." I am serious about the matter. It is of concern to me. My observations are disappointing, but before I make ACCUSATIONS, I want to give the BOC the opportunity to respond to the issues that concern me.
As to watching the TV coverage, again, I would love to do that. I, however, live in Yorkville, and when we moved here there was no such thing as cable. So, we got satellite hook up, and do not get the local cable station. I feel badly about that, but there is nothing I can do about it now. And this goes back to the old question about East side, West side, which I do not care to re-open at this time. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to get the video from the cable people and give it to the Pubster to air on Pcom after the fact. That would be a welcome addition.
I really think part of what is going on with me is that because I have so little time to devote to these sorts of issues, the only things I have to go on are the things I see while driving. To be frank about it, I had no real intent to delve into this once the elections took place. But as I began to drive around the county, 95% (not a scientifically derived assessment) of what I saw was not what I either expected to see, or what I wanted to see. It's just hard to miss all the residential development taking place in the county and hard to find the business development in the county unless traveling 120 or 278 near the Cobb County line. I had very frankly expected less othe first and more of the second. Then, on the few occasions I could get onto Pcom, I would catch snatches of the hospital issue and the other issues raised by Surepip. This was -- make that STILL IS -- disturbing to me, as it APPEARS to be inconsistent with the things I had been told by people I voted for. THAT is what generates more and more questions... the failure to perform as advertised. If the members of the BOC are performing as they represented themselves to be working toward, then these questions do not have any bite whatsoever. They are simply efforts to gain information. If, however, they are NOT delivering, then, yes, I would suppose there to be a significant bite to them, as it would be pretty difficult to publicly state "I'm not doing what I told you I would."
There may be perfectly good rationale to defend what I am seeing that is disturbing to me. And, if that is the case, I'll be glad to receive it. HOWEVER, if there is no rationale presented, no factual information offered to mitigate what appears to be happening, then I'm fully prepared to begin the debate, and will ask questions until someone gets tired of hearing about it and decides to take some action. At this point, the questions are not so much accusatory as they are efforts to generate some accountability, and set the record straight. I'm frankly not interested in politicians who get elected to run wild for 4 years. I voted. I want to know what effect my vote has had, and if it is not what I expected, I want to know why.
-
IDidntDoIt, maybe you can search for some facts: how many commercial zoning requests have been made in the past year? How many were denied? How many R-2 to PRD request have been made/denied?
Freebird,
I'd absolutely LOVE to do that. There is only one problem... I work almost all the time, and do not have the ability to get there when the offices are open.
I surely do wish someone would do the research and publish it on Pcom, though. I really think it would be good of Pubby to ask the BOC to provide that information to him so that he could set up a monthly (or weekly or even daily if needed) thread that would simply post the agendas, the policy decisions, who voted for/against what... etc.
I want to especially clarify I'm not trying to put more work on the Pubster, I just think the BOC ought to be interested enough in my vote to publish the kind of information I want to see in such fashion so as to enable me to see it. Since I don't do newspapers any more (why read last year's news?), I prefer it in an electronic format.
It would seem to me that if this BOC wanted public support and opinion, it would be their responsibility to publish their work. As a matter of fact, I wish someone would offer up as an agenda item a motion for them to publish this information on Pcom.
I also think it would be good for there to be a "scorecard" developed for each commissioner to follow his votes. That should not be too hard to generate.
The basic issue here is whether this BOC is elected to do their work with the citizens of Paulding County as their primary concern or whether they are simply the puppets of the developers who happen to work here.
Perhaps someone needs to consider developing a Paulding County Campaign Finance law which would restrict campaign funds to only RESIDENTS of this county. We are the ones who live here, and we are the ones who will wind up paying for the developers to walk off with millions. How many developers LIVE in Paulding County?
It really is about who should be in charge of this county. Shoud citizens be in charge? or Should the developers be in charge? Should the campaign finance laws of Paulding County reflect that decision? As it stands now, the developers are in charge.
If we, as citizens and residents of Paulding County, do NOT like that, then there are some approaches we can use to take back control of this county.
IF WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE:
Just keep track of what the BOC does, and when the election takes place, state your opinion very clearly with your vote.
IF WE DO NOT WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE ELECTIONS TO SEE CHANGE:
Begin to express yourself to the BOC via every means possible.
Use the telephone to talk with your commissioner.
Use the NEWSPAPERS for "Letters to the editor."
Use PCOM with threads that update every detail of what the BOC does.
Publish NAMES with the votes taken.
Identify Candidates NOW for the Next election, and begin working at giving them name recognition in this county. Develop a platform for them. Form a Draft (Candidate's name) Committee. Get the candidate talking about the issues and stating what is wrong with his opponent and what his proposal is to change it. There are only 10 months till the next election. That is not much time to unseat an incumbent.
Get together and form a political action committee that can get information disseminated and generate response via petitions of interest at the BOC meetings.
Someone also needs to publish a study on how specific votes have the potential of putting money into the businesses owned by each commissioner. If they have business relationships with any person making a presentation at a meeting, they should be REQUIRED to issue a disclosure of the relationship AND recuse themselves from any votes in which they have the possibility of benefitting from their vote, whether it is direct or indirect.
A good model to employ is the one the state has for all state employees regarding the APPEARANCE of conflict of interests. That model states that a state employee CANNOT enter into ANY business relationship with the state in any area that he has inside information or an employment relationship. For example, a few months ago, my office moved. I have a trailer and a van to pull it with. I spoke to my boss, offering to help. He refused my offer, stating that to accept it, I would have violated state ethics laws. I just thought I was helping. But, it did have the appearance of beating someone out of a contract, even though I would have gotten virtually nothing for my labor.
I think it would be a VERY healthy thing for no board member to be in the building/construction industry because of the APPEARANCE of conflict of interests due to the perceived volume of votes that directly affect that industry. Besides, it may be that one reason so little NEW business is brought into this county is because the BOC has a vested interest in things remaining the same, and therefore no significant motivation to change things.
....................
-
Markavd,
Thanks for the input.
I well understand the complexities of large organizations and time. I would like to believe that time is the only factor involved here. However, I believe the best evidence that is true is for the BOC members to regularly come in and tell us what they're up to. The only time I ever hear anything from this BOC is when they want me to support something specific, and it is usually something a builder wants that may not be in the best interests of the county overall.Finally, a lot of the issues mentioned in the first post take a lot longer to implement than a year. Most of the housing talked about was probably approved more than a year ago. As far as industry goes, we are still fighting the anti-industry image the county gave itself years ato.We hear griping and complaining about PRD's, and as you point out about the entire county being R2. There is a simple solution to that... CHANGE THE ZONING LAWS. Of course, it will be interesting to see whether this BOC can conceive of that since it will cost almost every one of them dollars in their businesses to do that from what I've heard. This is NOT rocket science. It just takes a little imagination, vision, leadership, integrity and will power.
I have to congratulate the BOC on the airport... GOOD JOB WELL DONE. That will change some things.
As far as the county reputation is concerned, may I suggest something of an alternative view. If we were dealing with the same individuals (invitations to bring business here) all the time, I might give that argument more credence. However, I would certainly HOPE the BOC has more foresight than to just keep coming back to the same people all the time.
There are thousands of new businesses started every week. What are we doing to contact them, and what are we offering them? My experience is that when the effort is made, the perception of ongoing hostilities decreases.
Perhaps questions like, "What agencies have been hired to pursue new business in Paulding County?" need to be asked.
What steps are being taken to get things rolling?
What policy decisions have been made to make this a business friendly community?
What is on the agenda of the BOC for the last year... the coming year?
Does anyone understand the ability to control the direction of the county by means of controlling the agenda? What does the use of the agenda during the past year and the planned agenda items for the coming year suggest about the vision and direction of the BOC?
What CHANGES have been effected from "business as usual?"
Have any efforts been made to audit policy and inquire as to what a new business might actually want, and find where the misfit is?
If there is misfit, what is being done about it?
What sort of consultations are being sought to try to fix the problem?
WHAT SORT OF NOISE ARE VOTERS MAKING???
As Pubby has so aptly and eloquently stated, it seems our interest is only in "keeping something out of my back yard," which is absolutely useless.
Is there any interest in forming a political block to address these issues and hold this BOC accountable? Is anyone wanting to see REAL change? Is there any interest in someone serving as a watchdog to verify that the BOC keeps it's "Political Promises," and preventing them from becoming "lies."
Most politicians respond to ORGANIZED PRESSURE, PRESENCE AND REPETITION OVER TIME simply because they want to continue to sit in the same seats and exercise their decision making powers. This can be good or bad, depending on the influence factors. If all this BOC hears from are developers, and the most frequent items on their agendas are developments, what do you think they are going to do? Rule on developments.
So what difference does this sort of thing mean? Precisely that if they do not change the PERCEIVED direction, YOUR TAXES WILL RISE. If on the other hand, they do diligently pursue what they've stated they will pursue, YOUR TAXES WILL STABILIZE.
In 1969, the county decided to zone the entire county R2. That means that anyone can put 2 homes per acre without checking with anybody. They thought they were doing the county a favor by doing that.If you want to build a subdivision, you don't have to get anyone's approval. Basically just get the building permits and build.
Our nation is a nation of laws. If the law says that if zoning request meets standards, it cannot be denied. If a building meets minimum requirements, the county can't deny a permit.
The courts of the land have ruled that overcrowded schools and overcrowded roads are NOT sufficient reason to deny zoning or building requests.
At least with PRD's, the county is able to get concessions in various forms from the builder. If the county didn't approve the PRD's, the builder could still build 2 homes/acre and not give any concessions.
Someone will say 'Impact Fees.' If you run the numbers, the potential amount raised by impact fees will probably be less than the county is able to get in concessions. By law, the impact fees must be used for improvements in the area of the county they are collected from, and they cannot be used for schools.
The cities don't have to go along with anything the county says. They can annex property and give appoval to the same projects that the county questioned. They can allow higher density housing than the county. If the county implemented impact fees, the cities don't have to go along.
Finally, a lot of the issues mentioned in the first post take a lot longer to implement than a year. Most of the housing talked about was probably approved more than a year ago. As far as industry goes, we are still fighting the anti-industry image the county gave itself years ato.
-----
So with all that in mind, give the commission some ideas to fix the problems. Remember, they have to be within local, state and federal laws.
If a similar thing was tried here or elsewhere and fought (and lost) in the courts, would you be willing to have your tax$$ to to fight (and probably lose) the same battle?
-
A little over a year ago, we were having a fast and furious election for some of the county commissioners and the Chairman offices.
I can remember lots of talk about the proposed directions of the commission, particularly as it related to residential development and business/industry development.
I seem to recall some "Political Promises" being made that efforts were going to be undertaken to try to increase the business/industrial development, and simultaneously decrease the residential development. My "recollector" may not be the clearest in the county, but I seem to recall those promises.
As I drive through Paulding County, recalling those "Political Promises," I keep seeing evidence of expanding residential development all over the county -- EVERYWHERE there's a new subdivision coming in. However, I'm NOT seeing a lot of evidence of new businesses or industries except for more retail shops, mostly near the Cobb County line on either 120 or 278.
Could the very fine members of Pcom come to my assistance here and help clarify my lack of understanding, as I'm sure our fine county commission is diligently making efforts to turn "Political Promises" into "Kept Promises."
I would also invite all county commissioners to communicate with Pcom on a regular basis. They seem to be sucked into Pcom with a vengance when there's an election, but now that there is no election, I don't find them to be such frequent contributors. Is that because there really is nothing newsworthy for these politicians or is it because of some other reasons that they do not want contact with voters?
By the way, similar things could be said for the school board members (of course, they have a different plate of issue specifics than business development...)
-
I work for the Department of Juvenile Justice. If you think Xanga is just some nice, innocent place where kids hang out and exchange pleasantries, you obviously have not spent much time on the site. From this and similar sites you can learn such things as:
Which body part of the opposite sex goes where and what you can do with them, along with what happens to body parts when you do certain things to or with them, and how that affects other body parts... How to set up a meth lab... What happens when a girl gets pregnant... How to find innovative ways to use all sorts of illegal substances... How to string 487 consecutive vulgar, profane words together... How to describe intimate relationships in the most vulgar terms... How to tell the whole world the names of all the individuals with whom you have had sex and how they rated compared to every other person with whom you have had sex... How to create havoc in your family... How to avoid the police after committimg a crime... How to act when arrested... How keep your parents from finding out any of 37,528 different things you want to hide from them... How to lie to your parents... How to get drugs... How to get alcohol when you are 12... How to persuade the opposite sex to have sex with you... How to play the choking game...
I could go on forever... The problem with all this nonsense is that these are kids that use the sites. They don't understand some very basic things: 1. They don't know whether the person doing the writing is another kid or not. 2. They don't know whether the person writing knows one whit about the copy that is smeared on the screen. 3. They do not have any idea who on the site is a predator. 4. They have no knowledge about how to protect themselves from predators. 5. They sometimes have no idea what should NEVER be put on the WWW.
There are terms that may be appropriate for parents who think their kid should have "privacy" on the WWW. Most of them are not permitted to be used in civilized society.
Parents have responsibilities to their kids and for their kids. An integral part of those responsibilities include protection from harm. Fail to exercise that responsibility and you can be taken to court by DFCS for "Deprivation," and the child removed from your custody. How do the courts view kids having unsupervised access to the internet? Irresponsible parenting.
-
Ken,
The first preacher was kind of right on some of what he said. There is no factual basis for saying December 25 is the date of Christ's birth. When astronomers, theologians, cultural anthropologists and historians have examined the biblical data, most have agreed that the time of Christ's actual birth was probably late summer -- August. However, NO ONE knows for sure.
Christmas, as has been alluded to above, has been selected as a day to remember the babe in the manger, and an occasion to celebrate the coming of a Savior into the world. December 25th is much more than likely NOT the actual date Jesus was born. That does not, however, mean that it is wrong to celebrate his birth on that date. I seriously question the influence of Chris Kringle having much to do with the selection of December 25th. Kris Kringle is Scandanavian, and probably developed either subsequent to, or even parallel to the selection of December 25th. I taught Life of Christ at a Bible College, and in all the research I've done on the subject of His birth, never ran across any CREDIBLE accounts attributing the selection of December 25 to Kris Kringle.
In addition, the account of Herod sending the Wise Men was an event whereby he attempted to hijack these three men who were already on a mission to discover the babe. They did not come from him as his emmisaries. He discovered they were attempting to find the new babe and wanted them to report back to him so he could kill Jesus. His failure to get the precise location of the new babe led to what is known as the "Slaughter of the Innocents," whereby an order was given to kill all males under the age of 2 years. This is the reason Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt.
I agree with you that many preachers misstate things. That is unfortunate. I, too, as a minister of over 30 years, wish other ministers would pay more attention to what they say from a pulpit. The only thing they do by misstating things is make louder statements about their own academic integrity than about anything else. It is OK for a preacher to speculate about things. It would just be a much better thing if they would just stand up and define the occasions when they are speculating. People would respect them for that, and would give them much higher credibility. I think some preachers just do not understand that truth and integrity are their major assets in doing God's work.
-
Thanks for the concern. I appreciate your expressions, but really, there's no need to be concerned about me. That's not the reason for the new topic. I'm back home, comfy and cozy at my 'puter.
I just hope that those who read the account of what happened will pause and reflect on the fact that a sign next to the Fort Hood Military Reservation exit had it right:
CAUTION: YOU ARE ENTERING THE MOST DANGEROUS AREA IN THE WORLD -- THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY -- DRIVE CAREFULLY!!!
-
We had just about completed our family Christmas gathering in Wetumpka, Alabama, and were on the way to the cemetary where we buried my mother last August.
About 400 yards from the cemetary, we saw the road blocked by a car and a motorcycle. We pulled off to the side of the road, and ran to help. My son-in-law, Daryl is a Homocide detective in Cherokee County SO, and I'm certified in First-Aid and CPR. We were in different cars, and both ran to see what we could do. As we approached the accident, and young boy, probably 17-18 years old, was dragging the motorcyclist to the side of the road. The young boy was hysterical, yelling, screaming, cursing, and in general having totally aimless behavior.
Daryl & I approached the cyclist and were joined by a nurse. I checked for a pulse, but found none. The nurse started to pull the helmet off, and the younger boy screamed at her, "Don't take his helmet off." She tried to explain to him that the cyclist was not breathing, and we had to get the helmet off to start CPR. "No, man, that's my brother," he screamed. "Is he OK?, He ain't dead is he?" We continued to work on the body. As I scanned, and talked with the nurse and Daryl, we noticed the eyes were fixed and dilated. The helmet came off to reveal a mouth filled with gold capped teeth, beginning to ooze blood. None of us had any mouth to mouth protectors. The living brother by now was kneeling over the body, trying to talk to his brother. I had started chest compressions, and the nurse told him to begin mouth to mouth breathing. He was scared at first, but did as we directed. I noticed that one leg appeared contorted out of it's natural shape, and angled really weird. People all over the place were dialing 911. Sirens blared, and within a few minutes there were police, fire rescue and ambulance services attending. Just before the police arrived, the younger brother reached into the pockets of the older brother and took out an unlabeled bottle of pills, a cell phone and a sum of money. Both boys had gang symbols tattooed on multiple parts of their bodies, and the younger had the swagger, the jargon, and the demeanor of one of the Latin gangs.
Sadly, the white sheet came out and covered the body. A young woman, maybe 17-18 years old came up screaming, "NO, NO, that's my husband." They lived about 100 yards from the accident. She was the mother of his baby, now about two months old.
This was a sobering experience for us, and a very sad event for this young family.
If you ride a bike, be careful. There is no second chance from fatal injuries. It only takes an instant, and life is OVER. I don't think the driver of the car had any intent to hurt the cyclist... probably just didn't see him.
If you drive any other sort of vehicle, please be aware that not everyone on the road is protected by a crushable steel cage. While you may survive a collision with a bike, the death of the cyclist will not be something you will easily forget.
-
HHHHMMMMMM.... "Preacher Wrong?".... Not a word about a preacher in the whole thread... HHHMMMM... Could this be "Bait & Switch?"....
DH: Several years ago, I worked in a place that REQUIRED specific accumulation of aerobic points to maintain our jobs. The dictator of the institution thought it would be in all of our best interests (or at least in her best interests for us) to NOT be fat slobs. That way, we'd be more photogenic in the PR pieces we would be featured in... One of her main theorems running through the whole program to convince us to participate was that being lighter would make us live longer. Since a part of this organization was a college, those of us on the faculty and administration began complying and continued to do so. I chose to run 3 miles 3 times/week. My times got down to about 24 minutes. At no time did I really push my limits, just a nice easy run. All we were supposed to do was get the heart into an aerobic range and hold it there for about 20 minutes.
Then on one particular night when I was particularly tired, I suddenly found myself unable to beat 43 minutes for the 3 little miles. This really bothered me, because, kinda like you, I was a bit full of myself, and really proud that at almost 40 I could outrun most of the kids on campus. I had been in athlethics most of my life... ran track in High school (52 flat on the 440), played baseball (struck out the three highest batting average players in 9 straight pitches one time), played football in college (defensive halfback with only three passes completed under my coverage in three years until the last game -- 7 touchdowns -- I was running 105 degree fever, but stayed in the game because I was still better than my replacement), played semi-pro fast pitch (not the same as marshmellow ball) softball (.517 batting average, .750 on base average), ran in the 1965 Texas state AAU championships in the 880 (NO I did NOT place, but I did compete).
The fastest I've ever run 3 miles since then is about 42.30. I'd LOVE to be able to get out and run another 5 minute mile, or another 52 flat 440, or another 10.1 100. But, you see, DH, I've got a problem I have to live with now... I developed a heart murmur that will not allow me to do endurance sorts of things any more. The CARDIOLOGISTS have stopped it. Maybe you'd like to talk to them, and let them know that your opinion has more medical validity than theirs does. If they entertain your musings, then call me, and I'll listen to what you say.
And as far as the diet is concerned, I'm not sure whether you are familiar with the A1C or not, but it is the blood test that us diabetics take about every 3 months. When I was first diagnosed with diabetes, it was 10.7. The highest since then is 6.7, with an average of 6.2. My PPO says he's not going to change a thing, as I'm OK. I'm managing my diabetic situation without any medication. I think if I'm doing that, my eating habits should be OK. And, yes, I've had a cardiac catherization. Results? The cardiologist came to my bed in recovery, and in front of my wife and parents-in-law, stated, "With arteries like yours, you should live another hundred years." (Exact quote).
The problem with your dispensing your prescription to everyone on Pcom is that you are making some overly broad generalizations, and attempting to make application to everyone. Not everyone on this web site is a 20 something and able to participate in unlimited exercise regimines. You seem to have missed that little point.
And as for the aerobic program, those of us in the faculty did a little math, and we discovered that if we spent the time required running for the rest of our lives that generate an extra two years, it would take an amount of time equal to three years to get that extra two. Just to be sure, we ran the numbers by the director of the aerobics program. He could not discover any errors in our calculations. Kinda left us scratchin' our heads and wondering, "What's up with all this?" "Why give up the equivalent of three years to get two?"
I'm all proud for you with your 3.7+ GPA (My last one while working on a Ph.D. at LSU was 4.0), and really proud of your abstinence from alcohol (I had enough problems with my father that I never started), and for your exhuberance over diet and exercise. I'm sure there are some on this web site that could use a gentle nudge from you, assuming you learn a little about human motivation. What you'll find is that you can kill more flies with honey than you can with a fly swatter. Maybe a little different approach??? Maybe a little dose of humility??? Maybe a little less arrogance??? Maybe a little less condescention??? Maybe a little less deception??? ("Preacher Wrong?")
If you would take the time to sit down with me and discover my situation before dispensing your prescription, and adjusting your advice to fit my situation, maybe I'd be a little more inclined to listen to what you have to say. At this point, however, it seems more like someone who has all the answers before discovering what the questions are.
What version of Bible
in Religious discussion
Posted
Ang,
I read as many as I can. I probably read KJV as much as any other. I also read NIV. I have had a copy of the "New Testament in 26 Translations," and used it frequently as a resource.
By the way, Strongs is a concordance, not a bible. I have one and use it.
Matthew Henry is the writer of a commentary, a simple one written in the 1700's, but a good one. I have it and use it occasionally.
Bsx2:
Superb perspective...
I probably would not have had knowledge of the things I do had I not taught a course on Bible Study Methodology several years ago. I had to do a lot of research for that course, and sometimes it just comes out rather spontaneously.
What I'm after is truth more than anything else. There is something inside me that drives me to ferret out things for myself, to verify things. I hope that it is something that helps others understand things not normally discussed. Facts and information help us to determine what we will and will not do. If you have questions about these matters I have posted, I would whole heartedly encourage you to go to the sources to check out what I have posted, independently of me. I am NOT the sole possessor of these facts. They are commonly known and have been for a long time.
Loved your post...