THE "Word"

Those within one church I presently attend often refer to: "The Word" -- whatever that is and is not.

Some also, instead of righteously and bravely contenting for the faith, infer that discrepant-against-each-other translations of That "Word" (whatever such is) is something to not become biased about nor nitpick about "occasional" and "minor" differences -- be they "slight" or "significant" or even "crucial" -- however such designations about those are or are not determined.

The same scenario applies to those who refer to some islamic, mechanics, or sundry religious book as: "THE" "Bible" or as "THE HOLY Bible" - whatever THAT is supposed to be and semantically contain relating to verbage.

Such dogmatically-conveyed audible assertions declared to others seem directly based upon a presumption or illusion of some non-alterable limited-content distinctly-worded Sacred Text consisting of a conglomeration of substantially-different words contained in various "bible" renditions such as the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Living Bible and Today's English Version, New Century Version, New King James Version, New International Version, Wesley New Testament, and a host of others.

As previous stated, much of the contents of all the above English translations are dissimilar as to wording, and the severity of differences range from seemingly-harmless synonym alterations and variations to completely-unique concepts inserted or omitted by words FAR too distant in meaning and association to reasonably be considered equivalent or related.

Resolution of this problem involving this webtract author is understandably selective in scope and perhaps considered somewhat lacking by more knowledgeable and learned scholars. However, yours truly will do his elementary best to help enlighten whoever he can with his starter-information honest rationality about the subject.

Diversion to source words of the original languages which certain English bibles are based upon is a logical recourse, and in this case involve Hebrew words comprising Old-Testament texts along with Greek words comprising New-Testament texts.

Notice that the word: "texts" is used in plural and not singular, and such was done to indicate that there are more than one set of "manuscripted" specific Hebrew words for English Old Testaments and even more than one set of specific Greek words for English New Testaments to be based upon. The age of the texts does NOT indicate nor prove their reliability nor non-reliability, nor whether or not only one Elijah or Micaiah compared to several hundred priests of Baal considered them usable and popular whenever they were unearthed and discovered.

Regarding the Old Testament, I am aware of only two Hebrew texts of the Old Testament (e.g. the ben Chayyim of rabbi Daniel Bomberg allegedly concocted around the 1500s, and the ben Asher Text containing Masoretic markings synthesized sometime in the tenth century A.D.). The ben Asher Masoretic Hebrew Text is now known as: Biblia Hebraica based upon a Leningrad or Stuttgart manuscript and edited by Rudolf Kittel around the 1920s. It is THE Hebrew Old-Testament Text which I (by faith) consider inerrant.

Regarding the New Testament, I am aware of a number of Greek texts (e.g. the Westcott-Hort, Nestle, United Bible Society, the Aland-Metzger, the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, and -- thankfully -- the Scrivener Greek Text). The Scrivener Greek Text was synthesized by F.H.A. Scrivener in England around 1894 (from previous Greek manuscripts discovered and assembled by contemporary-of-Martin-Luther Erasmus all the way back through devout-Catholic monasteries of conscientous monks and rabbis back to the church of Antioch, then Elzevir, Beza, and Stephens), which synthesis of Scrivener probably occurred in angry response against the significantly-corrupt Westcott-Hort text concocted in the 1880s by occultic spiritualists so named).

That Scrivener Text has been copyrighted by the Trinitarian Bible Society and is presently available in various editions, largely credited to the work of Jay P. Green through various publishers such as Baker Books of Grand Rapids Michigan, Hendrickson Publishers of Peabody Massachusetts, and Sovereign Grace Publishers of Lafayette Indiana.

It is the Scrivener/Trinitarian Greek Text of the New Testament which I (by faith, by simple but profound pure logic, and by rather extensive Greek-words-comparison independent study) believe is THE inerrant Greek Text of the New Testament. The inquisitive scientist is expected to investigate my claims for himself by himself instead of gullibly or adversely reacting out of thin air.

Now, getting back to "THE Word" - whatever that is.

Which "word?" There are many words (plural) in the entire Sacred-66-books Holy Bible. Which of those many words (whether only one or a strangely-prejudicial group of them) is THE one-and-only: "THE word?"

Obviously, persons who use that apparently weird-sound expression are uttering a euphemism to describe a certain specific and limited group of special words to allude to whatever they purport to be "THE Bible".

What are the conditions for such a euphemistic group of randomly-selected translated-into-English words to become considered: "THE Word?" Unless that euphemism is specified in painstaking and exhaustive detail with solid reference to specific choice words, the people who mouth such will be blattering about a vague nothingness and meaningless abstraction....laughable at best and pathetic at worst, besides committing and instigating hideous confusion.

It is fortunate that the exact Hebrew and Greek words I was born into and did not previously pen myself (nor my parents, nor their parents, nor their parents, etc. etc. etc.) have been preserved by who I believe is The Holy Spirit of Christ Jesus. The Divine Enforcer not only has inspired the original authors of Bible words to convey only those precisely-specific verbal and written words to the men who imprinted them on parchment and paper, but has extraordinarily retained the exact meaning of those words so that humans could perceive and can (to this day) yet perceive the totality of the expressed Will and Intentions of Almighty God.

Such has not been the case with non-Scriptural semantics, allegories, interpretations, contexts, commentaries, symbolism, figurative explanations, fables and myths. For example, the word "gay" used to merely mean yippie-skippie carefree and happy. But by now, homosexual perverts have thoroughly influenced most people to associate that word with being pseudo-legal ly effeminate, and have accentuated that sordid and despicable revisionism with the brainwashing buzzphrase: "gay rights." The same lamentable scenario applies to the abortion-homicide issue, when and where deviant-minded people deplorably attempt to legitimate abortion murder by miscalling it: "abortion choice," "pregnancy termination," "women's health," and of course: "abortion rights." Indecent-exposure porn is now mistermed: "art," and evolution-mythology heresy is miscalled: "science" by those having departed from pure speech.

Not so with Spirit-preserved words of genuine and authentic Holy Writ. The autographic words have NOT been synonymized, and their exact and specific intented meanings have not changed. Dictionary definitions have changed, but "the word of the Lord abides forever." Such is an eerie phenomena not of this world, and bespeaks of the awesome and potentially-terrifying power of the Lord.

What of discrepant English translations of various bibles? Microsoft computer engineers and hobbyists immediately recollect seeing the message: The file you are trying to load is older than a file you already have. It is recommended that you keep your existing file. Do you want to keep your existing file?. This webauthor likes operating-systems consistency, and so invaribly says: "No!" to such requests on the computer-monitor screen, but such noxious glitches (which do not make the computer enthusiast happy for the anti-fun of needless variety to supposedly alleviate non-existent boredom) do not result in euphemistically "throwing the different-files-version baby out with the software bathwater."

Similarly, it is through various bible (or is it instead "Bible" with a capital B?) translations that we largely-non-foreign-language-scholar peasants acquire Scriptural guidance, direction, which we can apply to ourselves and others, plus easily and effectively communicate as missionaries for the sake of edification and church-body unity in Christ.

No present English Bible translation is perfect, nor are all translations perfectly consistent down to the last dot and tittle with all others. Perhaps such can never be the case, with the English language constantly in an ever-changing state of flux. At any given time, there obviously is ONE best English word to use which everyone in their accomodating right minds can and will agree with. But some words suggested are definitely NOT acceptable and assuredly are "out of the question."

A few examples (and keep in mind that one cannot "have it both ways," being that frequently it is either one way or the other, and such dot-and-tittle objections are NOT "being hung up on inconsequential trifle incidentals!)

The RSV and NASV refers to Tamar wearing: "a full-length robe with long sleeves" in Second Samuel 13:18, whereas the KJV, NIV, etc. refer to Tamar wearing: "a coat of many colors." WHICH is it? It CANNOT be BOTH! Obviously, a garment of many technicolor colors is a whole different idea than a full-length garment reaching to the palms and ankles. Such VASTLY-different concepts are so far from being related that they cannot in all good conscience be considered to be even remotely related, and are as dis-related as much as a leaf is to a rock, or a lightning bolt to lamb's wool, and so forth.

In First Corinthians 7:1, the KJV, RSV, NASV state that a man should not: touch a woman...whereas the NIV [errantly and ridiculously] states that a man should not: marry a woman. "Touching" a woman and "marrying" a woman are obviously two different-enough concepts as to honestly and realistically be thoroughly non-related and certainly not synonymous. And, again, keep in mind that one cannot have it both ways: either one is correct and the other is false, or the other is right and the other is a dishonest and deceptive misinformational lie (whether imposed deliberately and maliciously, or carelessly and accidently).

First Timothy 5:14 in the KJV and Wesley states that: younger women [Gr. ne(o)teras] should marry, whereas the RSV, NASV, NIV, etc. mis-state that: younger widows should marry. Clearly, according to basic common-sense logic, all youngers widows are younger women....BUT not all younger women are younger widows! Even from that perspective, the words women and widows are definitely NOT synonymous. Added to that, nowhere in the Greek Text of First Timothy 5:14 is the English-equivalent word for "widows" (i.e. ch(e)ras) found. The demonic and devilish presumption that [supposed] previous context [however far back that does or does not go] overrides the Greek word for younger women is simply wrong, warped, twisted, evil, and diabolically demented.

Remember, the opening verses of the gospel of John do NOT state: "In the beginning was the context, and the context was with God, and the context was God." Nor does it state: "In the beginning was the interpretation, and the interpretation was with God, and the interpretation was God." Nor does it state: "In the beginning was the commentary, and the commentary was with God, and the commentary was God."

The precise and exact Hebrew and Greek word of the inspired and inerrant Text of the Holy Bible always takes precedent over any connived context, interpretation, commentary, allegory, symbolism, figurative allusions, etc. It is the precise and exact Hebrew and Greek words of "THE Word" (of God) upon which all kinds of contexts, interpretations, commentaries, sermons, and other worthy dissertations in contrast to vain and stupid babblings are and can be based upon.

Does it matter whether the word "women" or instead "widows" is printed in a Bible translation? What are the ramifications and consequences for people in general? God's will is disasterously NOT adequately conveyed to people about the subject of whether female humans should or should not marry or remarry....and as a result, supplemental Scripture verses either way are and are not reinforced, resulting in satanic misrepresentation, imbalance, distortion, and confusion with consequences of drving accidents, assembly-line mistakes, lurid and lascivious immodesty competition, partial to complete fornication, adultery, venereal disease, jealousy, guilt and grief, suicide, assaultive abuse and rape, and in some instances, murder.

Please do not burden me nor insult my intelligence nor yours by requesting lengthy off-on-a-tangent elaborations on how and in what ways previously-highlighted Scriptural-verse mis-additions and mis-subtractions have concerning all sorts of diabolical and far-reaching effects disrupting the well-being, safety, and satisfaction of human beings.

The Absurdity of The Imposition of Non-Specified Pronouns

Yours truly will tell you a story, a story to portray the difficulties of using non-specified pronouns in literature:

Dick and Jane, along with Tom and Jeri (that is, Geraldine), and of course Adam and Eve decided to marry each other as couples, then kiss, then engage in procreative activities (each in their private and secluded marriage-bed accomodations).

Dick started it off discussing with Tom and then Adam which room in the hotel they should reserve for fulfilment of God's command to: "Be fruitful and multiply, rather than committing and not "performing" "choice" - commonly presumed to involve not whether red or black goes first in a checker game, but instead about choosing or not choosing the woman's choice to allow a man's choice to conspire to choose the choice of choosing abortion-homicide murder. Jane talked to Jeri about it and Jeri mentioned it to Eve. Then Eve took it upon herself to talk to him, and he in turn talked to Jane. Then Jeri had a short conference with him who then talked it over with Adam and the other woman, upon which he suggested to her that she discuss details with him. He then referred back to what they had come up with, after which she proceeded to write down the specifics for both him and her. Meanwhile, he walked over to her and gave them both some new information, which she decided to tell her what he thought about it, after which the two of them decided to speak with the other two. Then came in a whatchamicallit who informed everyone that they needed a thingamijig to give to both him and her, after which she could allow him access to her personal information about both him and her, which she decided instead to actually convey. Finally, she and he went to her and him to tell her but not him to go ahead with it as soon as possible.

Damnably Advocating the Abolition of Social Security Against Senior Citizens

This webtract author has heard a number of so-called "conservative" radio talkshow hosts on Salem-Communications AM 1280 AM (e.g. Medved, Prager, others) and a few candidates and others on FOX cable TV (rife and reeking with immodestly-hairstyled mopheaded talking heads on Hannity) diabolically advocate abolishing Social Security and supposedly replacing the monthly-payment checks to needy senior citizens with short-or-long-term pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by Wall-Street gambling (a.k.a. per satanic devilspeak: "investments") in gold and whatever.

Proverbs 22:27 If you have nothing with which to pay, why should your bed be taken from under you?

To such mentally-lacking morons I would simply say: "Get real, wake up and smell the coffee, instead of mouthing an absurd pipe dream!"

Government politicians should not expect the poor to merely get paid back in Heaven while depriving them when they live in destitute poverty and bankruptcy here on Earth:

Luke 16:1 (paraphrased) [Jesus] also said to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a steward, and charges were brought to him that this man was advocating that the poor elderly lose their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
2 And he called him and said to him, 'What is this that I hear about you? Tax your self-sufficient six-figure income into bankruptcy, and disqualify your of receiving Social Security and Medicare Retirement Funding, for you can never receive Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements.
3 And the conservative-republicrat said to himself/hrself: "What shall I do, since my master is taking Social Security and Medicare benefits away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.
4 I have decided what to do, so that people may receive me into their houses when I am put out of the Retirement Funding.'
5 So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'
6 He said, 'A hundred measures of oil.' And he said to him, 'Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.'
7 Then he said to another, 'And how much do you owe?' He said, 'A hundred measures of wheat.' He said to him, 'Take your bill, and write eighty.'
8 The master commended the dishonest republicrat for his/her shrewdness; for the sons/daughters of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons/daughters of light.
9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of those who are still receiving Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.
10 "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much.
11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches?
12 And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?
13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at Him.
15 But He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
16 "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.
17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void."
18 "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
19 There was a rich conservative TV and radio talkshow host, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.
20 And at his gate lay a poor senior citizen named Lazarus, full of pre-existing-condition sores,
21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his Obaminable sores.
22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
25 But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your gold-investment exchange into worthlessly-inflated fiat paper money, and Lazarus in like manner was deprived of much-needed Social Security check and Medicare reimbursements; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house,
28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'"

Most seniors do not know how to invest, and even worse, invest successfully. They are too old to learn, it is too inconvenient in their disabled situation to enter into treacherous dependence upon non-predictable income, especially in our trillion-dollar-debt failing national economy, and the recent Wall-Street financial collapse should be enough to frighten everyone that - as the fine print at the bottom of the advertisements states: "All principal is not FDIC insured, and is at risk." Madoff took great advantage of that one, and hundreds of gullible suckers lost millions.

I really do wish that those notably of republicrat persuasion who are not dependent upon those monthly Social-Security checks which most American seniors are quite dependent upon to pay residual monthly bills would get dependent upon those payments from the Treasury Department, consider themselves working for the Government, and quit calling Social Security funding: "welfare entitlement." It is not a shame to be given back money paid into Social Security from deducted-out-of-previous-employment paychecks.

Against (and not "for") those who mis-think that it is a shame:

Deut 15:11 For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in the land.

Psalm 10:2 In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor [by depriving them of Social-Security checks and Medicare reimbursement]; let them be caught in the schemes which they have devised.
Psalm 12:5 "Because the poor are despoiled, because the needy groan, I will now arise," says the LORD; "I will place him in the safety for which he longs."
Psalm 14:6 You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge [by providing Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements].
Psalm 72:4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor!
Psalm 112:9 He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever; his horn is exalted in honor.
Pr 21:13 He who closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself cry out and not be heard.
Pr 22:7 The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.
Pr 22:16 He who oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to want.
Pr 22:22 Do not rob the poor [of Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursement payments], because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate;
Pr 28:27 He who gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.
Pr 29:7 A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge.

James 5:4 Hey, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

What needs to be done to preserve the Social Security system, and even begin to issue payments starting at age 60 as Leviticus 27:7 indicates, is to stop non-scrupulous politicians from dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund to fund wasteful and senseless voter-bribing pork projects, and to withhold all Social Security benefits from illegal aliens.

What about arrogantly-self-emulating pride some republicraps have in asserting and insisting upon financial non-dependence upon, away from, and against American Government? Well, HOW much financial disassociation away from our cherished Government does one sensibly want to commit and not "perform"? To establish their own currency and attempt interactive commercial trade with and against those quite content to be under the control of the Government already established? To isolate onesself enough so as to presume that he or she is some kind of "sovereign nation" would inevitably require a competitive-enough military force to exercise probably-fatal interaction against and from the alien-despised Government? To unselfishly and non-hypocritically help pay off part of the gigantic national debt with a good share of their investment riches?

This does not mean that monies cannot be acquired by the elderly from particularly-senior-citizen hobbies and their part-time avocations, or that they are forbidden from innovating and earning additional substinence from such endeavors - IF, then whenever, however, and as much as possible.

But we all live as interdependent commercial associates within the United States Government, and to presume that it is a disgrace to barter services and economic allegiance for financial support from American Government deserves the most severe reprimand, and relentless retaliation and non-compliance by voting and legislating against proponents of abolishing Social Security and Medicare who defamatorily mis-call such crucial Government provision: "welfare entitlements."