"This is ridiculous. Actually charity is love....but com'on Baker, you're taking a modern way we use a word now and trying to show how it doesn't fit in a book that was written in 1611. At least you admit it's your opinion. So it's your opinion against all the other works of ancient literature as well as a Greek Lexicon. "

Well, praise God, at least you admit your book was written in the 1600's finally instead of continuing to insist that it's the same material that the people who walked with Jesus had in their hands. The difference between this and "all the other works of ancient literature as well as a Greek Lexicon" is that we don't rely on their philosphy being inerrant. We don't try to live according to them as if they were an instruction book for life.

We have the leisure to give and take a bit between translations when we read The Iliad. When you are going to burn in hell or your parents are going to disown you because you've blasphemed God, you might find it more important that we understand the meaning behind the words.

"Charity means love Baker....so skip the sermonizing ok? I gave you the definition. Now I'm a nazi? Can't you ever converse without the name calling? Your charity is not showing Baker, maybe you need to open the book more often. "

Charity DOES NOT MEAN LOVE. It's sad and transparent that you go to this extreme to prove your point. I'd bet dimes to donuts I could pick other scriptures and you'd have a problem with me finding loose synonyms for the words.

You can easily be charitable to people you don't love. Sometimes we can be least charitable to the people we love the most. You're a liar when you pretend this is your standard, when it is only your standard when it serves your purpose. Is that addresssing you directly enough?

You allow for sloppy translation and loose interpretation when it suits your argument, and then insist on stolid, by-the-letter interpretation when it suits you. What would you call people like that?

"NO, this is incorrect. God doesn't choose who goes into hellfire. We do. We choose to sin. We choose NOT to follow God. It is WE who make this decision. Jesus is truth. Jesus is God. Therefore God is Truth. Maybe not YOUR truth. But HE is the truth."

You should preface that with "I believe" because you know as well as anyone that many protestants believe otherwise, while reading the same "inerrant" book that "translates itself". Odd that something so apparent would be so divisive. Maybe things aren't as clear as you make them out to be.

*for clarification* It should have read MATT 14 in response #14.

For some reason JU would not let me edit my respose.

Charity DOES NOT MEAN LOVE

YES IT DOES!!!

you said this:

One good definition I saw was "love in action", or actually doing something about your love when someone else is in need.

You can easily be charitable to people you don't love. Sometimes we can be least charitable to the people we love the most. You're a liar when you pretend this is your standard, when it is only your standard when it serves your purpose. Is that addresssing you directly enough?

Thanks for the directness....you could have left out the liar bit tho. But I'll just add it to my pile that I've forgiven you for. Hey, what are friends for?


Your definition of "love in action" is a definition that I believe is taught in scripture and is correct. Love is not about the feel goodies in the tummy. Love is doing for somebody when you don't necessarily want to do it. You do it anyway. Inside you may not be feeling very loving but on the outside what is being seen is the action.

I think of the step mom who inherited her husbands sulky, undisciplined 15 year old son. Repeatedly she found herself picking up after him, cleaning up his vomit after he came home from drinking, repairing a broken window he busted to get into a locked house. She hated it and she felt anger and hatred towards the boy. But she didn't show it. She showed love to him as she prayed to God to help her love him. When he was finally sent away to a treatment facility and was rehabilitated he was told he could give a rose to the person who helped him the most at a graduation. He picked his step mom as that person. She was horrified. All the time she held back her anger and hate but all he saw was love.

Yes, love is action. Charity is doing towards another even when you may not feel like it. Yes, Charity is love.

Mother Teresa once said to someone...."Get busy, love with your hands."

That's what 1 Cor 13 is all about. Any ministry without Charity/Love makes a horrible sound. It's like clanging gongs.

Hey Baker, how musical do you think you are?

When you're arguing for literalism, the wording is VERY important because of the connotations each word can have.  Vulture vs Eagle is a big difference.  Either it's a literal transcription of the word of God, or it isn't.  There isn't a gray area here to move around in.

Charity vs Love.  Charity can be an act of love, but love in itself is not an act of charity.  For them to be truely equal, they must be completely interchangable with one another... which they are not.  It's path that only flows one way.

If we're going for literalism, there has to be ONE correct translation, one correct set of words that are the message of God.  All others are attempts to approximate, but are in fact NOT the Word of God.  Which version is right?  Is it only the ancient Greek texts we've found in pieces?  If so, any translation from Greek to modern English would result in a fallible book, since Greek does not translate directly to English.  The Roman Catholic version was the Book of Christ for centuries before it was taken and modified.  Each step down the path, you go further and furhter from the initial Word of God.  Each time it was rewritten by scribes in different regions of the world (while it was still being written in Greek) differences were introduced.  Each time it made a transition from one language to another (aramaic ->Greek -> Latin -> etc...) errors are introduced due to the inaccuracy of the spoken and written word.  And if you want to say that each and every translation was God-directed, was then each Council God-directed?  Was the Protestant Reformation and the changes it introduced to the Bible God-directed?  If so, would that mean that previous versions were "wrong"?

Until the printing press, the entire concept of a perfect reproduction of any text was more or less a fantasy.  And even after that, the words laid on the press were influenced by the views and opinions of the typesetter.

This isn't necessarily about the fallibility of man so much as it's a matter of the documented changes through history.  God essentially played one big game of "Whisper Down The Alley" where he gave The Word to the first authors of the Biblical texts, and from there, they passed the word on to their followers, and so on, and so on down the line.  Periodically, a politician changes things, but the game continues from there.  Then we get a point where the long line of followers passing The Word down splits in a bunch of different directions.  From here, the game continues, with each line diverging further and further from the other.

Sure, all the versions of the Bible closely resemble one another still.  They still hold the same core beliefs and espouse the same core values.  It's the details, the word choice for purposes of readability, the simplification so the average peasant could understand it, that have changed over time.  That to me, is actually the proof of the STRENGTH of the Bible and of God's Word.  Not in the literal details, because those come and go with time and change to fit language, but in the fact that the same core values come across all sects and denominations.

The other problem I have with the literalist Bible view is the whole bit of how  people who argue that XYZ is the ABSOLUTE WORD OF GOD because it's how they INTERPRET a Bible passage.  I would be more inclined to believe in a literalist Bible, IF everyone didn't have a different opinion of what the CORRECT meaning of any given passage meant, how important it was, and how it should be followed and lived.  I find it presumptuous for any single person to claim they have the correct interpretation.  Such claims are to say you know the true mind of God where others do not, and that, to me, seems like the very height of pride... a pretty nasty Sin if I remember correctly.

"If we're going for literalism, there has to be ONE correct translation, one correct set of words that are the message of God. All others are attempts to approximate, but are in fact NOT the Word of God."

Ah, but you forget Zoomba, this is literalism with a difference. This is literalism wherein the elect are able to deem whether the word is intended literally or not through the influence of God. If you've got your "heart right" you understand, if not you make it what you want it to be, according to them.

Oddly, people just like them, a few miles down the road, who speak the same language and come from the same culture, come to different conclusions. What sort of God would blind them to something so obvious? I don't believe He does, I believe that it's a man-made book that people keep propping up with spiritual revelation to pose the superiority of their meaningless religious doctrine.

"This isn't necessarily about the fallibility of man so much as it's a matter of the documented changes through history. "

...and differences inside the *brains* of people in different cultures. KFC knows full well that there are simply NO translations that fit ideally particular words in ancient, and even modern, languages. You can give a close approximation, but you cannon FEEL what the person born to that language feels when they hear the word.

So, as a translator, you're never, ever going to be able to inerrantly translate something so complex as religious belief.

"I think of the step mom who inherited her husbands sulky, undisciplined 15 year old son..."

I would ask you, then, did the other people around him not love him? If charity and love are interchangable there'd be no difference between the person that cleaned up his puke and the person who stood by, just loving him.

Obviously when the time for handing out roses came, there was a difference between charity and love. I think it will be that way in the end of all things, too.

Just as an offtopic aside, could you some time, not necessarily here, but somewhere, explain what or who exactly you are "kickin"? My 10 year old daughter asked me and honestly I couldn't tell her.

Vulture vs Eagle is a big difference. Either it's a literal transcription of the word of God, or it isn't.

Well the KJV uses "eagle." Most notes in the KJV will say vultures. I believe "vultures" is a better term. The Catholic DR bible also says "eagles." This is not a problem. The meaning of the text is not lost whether it's "eagles" or "vultures" The scripture in question?

For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together Matt 24:28

The location of a carcass is visible from great distances because of the circling carrion birds overhead whether it be eagle or vulture. Similarly, Christ’s return will be clearly evident to all near and far. The same point is made by the lightning in v. 27. The eagle-carcass imagery here also speaks of the judgment that will accompany His return which we see in Revelation. And that's what it's all about. It's not about the eagle or the vuluture, it's the word for bird the diff translators decided to use from the Gk word.

Notice the word "body" is used and "carcase" is used. Which is correct? While body is not incorrect, carcase is a better translation. This is where going to the orignial languages help us. Here we have the Latin which is straight from the Greek but notice in the latin it says....corpus. In the Gk when I looked at that it meant definitely "dead body."

Latin Vulgate
24:28 ubicumque fuerit corpus illuc congregabuntur aquilae


King James Version
24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.


American Standard Version
24:28 Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.


Bible in Basic English
24:28 Wherever the dead body is, there will the eagles come together.


Darby's English Translation
24:28 For wherever the carcase is, there will be gathered the eagles.


Douay Rheims
24:28 Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together.


Noah Webster Bible
24:28 For wherever the carcass is, there will the eagles be collected.


Weymouth New Testament
24:28 Wherever the dead body is, there will the vultures flock together.


World English Bible
24:28 For wherever the carcass is, there will the vultures be gathered together.


Young's Literal Translation
24:28 for wherever the carcase may be, there shall the eagles be gathered together.

would ask you, then, did the other people around him not love him? If charity and love are interchangable there'd be no difference between the person that cleaned up his puke and the person who stood by, just loving him.

Well what do you honestly think Baker? Honestly? Do you think those that did nothing but professed love Really loved him? Do you really? Do you think it's all about the warm fuzzies? I'm sure you've heard it said...."Don't tell me you love me, show me."

You were on a roll when you said love is an action word.

Obviously when the time for handing out roses came, there was a difference between charity and love. I think it will be that way in the end of all things, too

not really. Love is doing. Charity is doing. Even if you don't feel like it.

Think about it Baker. What example did Christ give for loving his neighbor? . Does the Good Samaritan come to mind? Did he have the warm fuzzies as he walked by the hurt one? Did he say..."I feel your pain as he walked by?" NO. He took time out to do what he most likely didn't really have time to do. He was CHARITABLE to his neighbor. That, is true love. This is the example Christ gave and for a reason. it's not about emotion. To love God and to love our neighbor is a decision we make to DO. Christ showed that love on the cross by DOING.

If you knew the background of the relationship between the Samaritans and the Jews, you'd be further impressed.

You may want to read the story of the Good Samaritan to your daughter. I'd highly recommend it.

Just as an offtopic aside, could you some time, not necessarily here, but somewhere, explain what or who exactly you are "kickin"? My 10 year old daughter asked me and honestly I couldn't tell her.

hahahaha, are you talking about my saying to you that you are "kicking against the pricks?" Well for that you'd have to go to Acts Chap 9. Another great story for you and your daughter to read together. But if you want background on that you'd have to include Chap 6:8-8:1 of Acts as well when it describes the stoning of Stephen.

It's not me doing the kicking....it's you. You are kicking against the pricks. Read that and if you still don't understand I'll further explain what it means.

"Well what do you honestly think Baker? Honestly? Do you think those that did nothing but professed love Really loved him? Do you really? Do you think it's all about the warm fuzzies? I'm sure you've heard it said...."Don't tell me you love me, show me."

That's a pretty harsh condemnation there, KFC. Don't you believe that we should love everyone as Jesus loved everyone. If you drive by bums in the street without showing your "love", do you really love them?

Come on. Love and charity are two different things. You know as well as I do that had things gone a little differently all that cleaning up his puke could have validated his childishness and he could have drank himself into a body bag or into a car to take people with him. Would that "charity" have been "love" then?

Charity and love are different things, and you know that, you're just making these inane arguments to prop up the inerrancy of the Bible. Doesn't it feel like holding back the ocean with a broom sometimes?

"If you knew the background of the relationship between the Samaritans and the Jews, you'd be further impressed."

Ugh, how can you BE so condescending? Do you really know many people who ever went to church for more than a year or two that didn't hear about the relationship between the Samaritans and Jews? It's standard fodder, for heaven's sake.

I think statements like that are so telling. After all the conversations you've still got yourself convinced that you are so much more knowledgeable about this than everyone else. We must be ignorant, right? Since we disagree with you?

My daughter heard the story a long time ago. I was sure to tell her the difference between love and charity at the time to make sure she went through life knowing the difference between a Pharisee and someone who truly walked the walk. People who think love and charity are the same thing tend to just assume they are charitable because they LOVE everyone so much. *gag*

"hahahaha, are you talking about my saying to you that you are "kicking against the pricks?" Well for that you'd have to go to Acts Chap 9. Another great story for you and your daughter to read together. But if you want background on that you'd have to include Chap 6:8-8:1 of Acts as well when it describes the stoning of Stephen. "

No, I've told you more than once that I know what kicking against the pricks means, even though you continually like to pretend I don't... like the Samaritan thing above. I've also pointed out that the 'pricks' are things that are there and don't back down when you kick them. I don't remember shrinking from your kicks yet.

No, I am talking about your NAME here for heaven's sake. You know "kickin for Christ"? Who or what exactly are you kicking for Christ?

how do we separate the fact from the fiction?

There comes a time when we must stop and ask ourself, “What do I really think?” It’s all subjective at the end of the day, and we should listen to all views, weight it up, and decide for ourselves. We don’t want to base our decisions and beliefs on the un-evolved attitudes or weaknesses of others.

Becoming a Christian doesn't mean we need to suddenly stop thinking for ourself,

"So, which is inerrant? Is it "Faith, Hope and Love" or "Faith, Hope, and Charity"? There are TONS of differences between the word love and the word charity, yet many translations differ.

"Faith, Hope and Charity"---God created us to know, love and serve Him in this world so we will be with Him in eternity. Through Christ's redemption, we are given the supernatural gifts of God to help us attain salvation. The chief effects of Christ's redemption are the satisfaction of God's justice by Christ's suffering and death, and the gaining of grace for mankind. Grace is a supernatural gift from God thru the merits of CHrist for our salvation. (The Bible is God's written Word to us about salvation and tells us about these gifts.) These graces or gifts of God by which we believe in Him, hope in Him, and love HIm are called the divine or supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity.

Faith is a divine virtue, a supernatural gift of God's grace which enables us to believe without doubting the truths God has revealed becasue God is the Very Truth and can neither decieve or be deceived. Revelation of God's truth is through the Bible God's inerrant Word and is what KFC solely relies on. For me, it is both the Holy Scripture and the teacing of the Catholic Church whose Magisterium is the only interpretator of the Bible.

Hope is a divine virtue by which we firmly believe that God will give us eternal life and the means to obtain it.

Charity is a divine virtue by which we love God above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor (which means everyone all over the world, even our enemies), as oursleves for the love of God. Charity toward our neighbors (strangers included) is the fruit of the love of God and a moral characteristic of Jesus who exemplifyied these virtues with great humility. "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." St. John 13:35. The pagans were converted just by seeing how the early CHristians treated each other with charity. Christians can convert neo-pagans just by modeling the virtues of faith, hope and charity. Mother Angelica of the Catholic Cable channel, EWTN, said, "Faith is what gets you started. Hope is what keeps you going. Love is what brings you to the end." And St. Paul said, in the end, love alone endures. St. John of the Cross said, in the end our life will be judged by how we loved. His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, just completed his first encyclical called, Deus Catitas Est, God is Love.
In life, in every action, it always come down to whether or not we act, speak, and think in love.

St.Thomas Aquinas tells us the theological virtues of faith and hope can exist without charity....and charity is impossible without faith and hope. An act of faith which does not proceed under the impulse of charity is not a perfect act of faith. Believing in God without loving Him does not effectively lead a man to God. Similiarly, hope cannot be perfect without Charity or love of GOd.

Grace is a gift and God forces no one to accept His freely gift of grace. (we have a free will). If we refuse to accept His grace, or make bad use of it, is to sin. The opposite of virtue is vice.

ANy action that does not have charity, is destined to failure. It is important that when we do work with charity, we cannot think oursleves better or holier than others, this is where the virtue of humility comes in. They must all be entangled together to produce good work and for true happiness.

I've never replied here, but:

-It's the original Hebrew/Greek that are considered to be infallible. All translations are not considered to be infallible.

-The originals are considered to be infallible because it is believed that God had inspired the authors.

If you drive by bums in the street without showing your "love", do you really love them?

I'm telling you LOVE is more than the warm fuzzies. Love is action. I believe in the 7:37 principle. That is Luke 7:37 that those who have been forgiven much love much. The story is about the woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her hair and expensive perfume. We don't really know love until we feel the love of Christ. Sure we go thru the motions but it's not the real love that only comes from him. We love because He first loved us is how John put it.

Would that "charity" have been "love" then?

well part of that story you're leaving out is that the parents put him in a rehab center. It was not what he wanted to do or a place he wanted to go so I'm sure to him it didn't feel like love, but it was. Taking care of the unloveable is real love. It's one thing to get up in the middle of the night with a fussy child when you don't feel like it, (another example of love in action) but it's quite another to care for a rebellious teen that has no one in mind but himself and to love him anyway by your actions.

Love and charity go hand in hand. I'm not talking about just giving to charity so others can see how great you are like the Pharisees. No. Their motive was not love. So in that respect they are giving but their motive was pure selish not selfless. But the old way of saying love was Charity. And that's all. When you read the KJV and read Charity it was another name for love. Today we may give to Charity, but it doesn't necessarily mean love....if that's what you going for.

Do you really know many people who ever went to church for more than a year or two that didn't hear about the relationship between the Samaritans and Jews? It's standard fodder, for heaven's sake.

first of all, how am I to know that you EVEN go to church? You're not giving me any indication you do. One person commented to me you come off as an agnostic not a believer after she read your comments. Sure you told me way back when you went to church, but I don't know what you know. Second many people go to church and yet know very little of the scriptures. A lot of churches don't bother digging into scripture much. Third, the story can be preached or taught without going into how deep the hatred really was between the two groups. They have extensive background that many preachers may not get into in a Sunday morning message. I was just asking you if you knew the background. Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention.

You really have to lighten up Baker. I'm not even close to being the bad guy as you want to believe.

Who or what exactly are you kicking for Christ?

oh that? It's just a play on words using KFC and a way to instead of saying...moving for Christ, running for Christ, walking for Christ..etc. I look at kickin as sort of like waking others up to Christ. The scriptures warn alot about not slumbering. Many are asleep, (spiritually) and we need to stay alert and awake. Lots of stuff on that. So I look at it like I'm "kickin" someone awake, shaking them up sort of. Sort of like Jesus did when He was at prayer and his disciples were asleep the night he was taken. Most of the time it's uncomfortable. No one likes to be awaken from slumber where it's warm and comfortable. So my "kickin" is not going to be comfortable. But it may be the only way I can wake them up to what's coming since they are in such deep slumber.

I don't remember shrinking from your kicks yet.

well that's not the point. It's not shrinking I'm after, it's waking I'm after. The way you've been shouting at me, I'd say I got your attention. I just don't want you to fall asleep.

What do I really think?”

see Andy this is where you and I part company. I don't think it matters what I THINK at all. It's not about ME. It's all about HIM. It matters what HE thinks. Not what I think. We have to get OUR thinking in line with HIS. I don't believe it's subjective at all. Truth is not subjective. Truth is objective. It never changes.

Becoming a Christian doesn't mean we need to suddenly stop thinking for ourself,

and this? I totally agree with you here Andy. Right on. That's a fallacy many believe about Christians. We don't think. But it's the opposite. We are thinking. Some of the great thinkers of all time were fundamental Christians. Are you going to accuse them of not thinking?

It's the original Hebrew/Greek that are considered to be infallible. All translations are not considered to be infallible.-The originals are considered to be infallible because it is believed that God had inspired the authors.

EXACTLY. Thanks for responding.

"I'm telling you LOVE is more than the warm fuzzies. Love is action."

Well, then 90% of the love talk in modern christianity is a lie, even from you. If you don't really love anyone that you don't show charity to, then how many people do you really love? Damn few, I'm guessing.

"But the old way of saying love was Charity. And that's all. When you read the KJV and read Charity it was another name for love. Today we may give to Charity, but it doesn't necessarily mean love....if that's what you going for."

I'd really be ashamed if I were you. You've surpassed the point where even you could blind yourself to how hard you are scraping.

THE WORD LOVE IS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 261 TIMES
THE WORD CHARITY IS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 28 TIMES

If 'the old way of saying love' was really charity, it's odd they had a word for both, isn't it? Odd that you'd have both in the translation, isn't it?

Odd that Paul in Corinthians would use BOTH the word love and the word charity in both chapter 8 and 13. The New Testament has 10 chapters that use both the word love and the word charity. You have no clue whether or not those words were interchangable, because you have no clue the connotations they held in the original greek, even if they used the same root word and greek wasn't always even the original NT language.

Your greek root word is often a translation itself. And this is all meaningless anyway, because someone handed a Bible without the background wouldn't know they were the same word. So much for the Bible "translating itself". I guess along with the Gideon's in motel rooms they need to leave a "Smith's"... lol.

"You really have to lighten up Baker. I'm not even close to being the bad guy as you want to believe. "

Oh, I don't have to judge your claims, I can judge your actions here and your beliefs, and I really, really do think you are the bad guy I believe you are.

" No one likes to be awaken from slumber where it's warm and comfortable. So my "kickin" is not going to be comfortable. But it may be the only way I can wake them up to what's coming since they are in such deep slumber."

Yeah, I didn't want to tell her you were kicking people, even philosophically, without getting it directly from you first. So much for "charity", your tude is pretty obvious.

"EXACTLY. Thanks for responding."

WAIT... WAIT! So can we right now hear it from your mouth that the King James Version of the Bible is not the infallible word of God. Would you please say that, once and for all? That is EXACTLY what you just agreed to.