Discussions on homophobia

Please see here for a description of why I’m recording these discussions.

The Article

The discussions took place in response to the article: “Only Homophobes Will Make It To Heaven And All Non-Homophobes Will End Up In Hell”.
The article was attributed to Walid Shoebat.

Discussion with PaulF

The text of the first discussion was originally recorded here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walidshoebat/only_homophobes_will_make_it_to_heaven_and_all_non_homophobes_will_end_up_in_hell/#comment-3421006308
The discussion was between myself Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/), and PaulF (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_xmVDERDvoP/) PaulF frequents the following other communities: https://disqus.com/home/forum/cherald/, https://disqus.com/home/forum/telegraphuk/, https://disqus.com/home/forum/spectator-new-www/ and https://disqus.com/home/forum/spectatorwww/
On 21 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article - (16 July 2017)

I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.
 

PaulF to Andrea Wright - (16 July 2017)

What God says in the Bible aren't my opinions. They are the truth.

Andrea Wright to PaulF - (17 July 2017)

Hello Paul,

Please could you explain why it is that you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

I ask this in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15
".. in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence".

Thank you.

PaulF  to Andrea Wright (18 July 2017)

Hello Andrea.'Faith is by hearing, and hearing is by the word of God' (Romans 10:17).That is exactly how I came to believe it. By hearing it; giving my attention to it.But my faith is not only my doing. It is the work of God in me. As Jesus says, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one whom he sent" (John 6:29).If you don't yet believe, my advice is, pray for the gift of faith. God is certainly willing to give it to you.

Andrea Wright to PaulF (18 July 2017)

Hello Paul,
Thank you for sharing that with me.
It makes sense to me that faith in something or someone can only come about by hearing about that thing or person. And I appreciate you taking the time you've given to answering my query.
I was wondering as well, though, if there was any particular aspect of what you hears or any experience that led you to believe in the truth of it?
I think I understand as well, that belief and faith could be something that God gives to people as He works in their lives,
However, in reading John 6, it seems that Jesus is saying that people do the work of God when they believe in the One that He sent, rather than the work of God is to give belief to people.
Of course that's not to say that God doesn't increase people's faith.
Anyway, apologies if I'm misinterpreting that.
I'd be interested in hearing if there were any specific things that led you to your faith.
Thank you for your patience.

As at 7 August 2017 there was no reply from PaulF.

Discussion with Trevor

The text of the second discussion was originally recorded here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/walidshoebat/only_homophobes_will_make_it_to_heaven_and_all_non_homophobes_will_end_up_in_hell/#comment-3421656152
The discussion was between myself Andrea Wright (https://disqus.com/by/disqus_u52jnKnZ6E/), and Trevor (https://disqus.com/by/trevorsgreene/) who maintains a journal here: http://atrevorsjournal.blogspot.co.uk/ and writes from what he describes as a Catholic-Orthodox perspective. He poses his own question on his Disqus profile: Am I a Christian or not simply because I chose to become Anglo-Catholic?
On 21 July 2017 the discussion reads as follows:
Andrea Wright to the Author of the article -  (16 July 2017)

I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.

Trevor to Andrea Wright - (17 July 2017)

A man sticking his johnson in another man's butt ok with you?

A woman licking another woman's hoo-ha ok with you?

A man having his way with a horse ok?

A woman allowing a horse to penetrate her ok?

Say yes to any of the above and you are damned.

Andrea Wright  to Trevor - (17 July 2017)

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for that.

Is this what you believe the Bible says because you believe it to be the Word of God and the truth?

If so then I'd like to ask you the same thing that I asked Paul.

Please could you explain why it is that you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

Again, I ask this in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15
".. in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence".

Thank you
Andrea

Trevor to Andrea Wright - (18 July 2017)

You failed to answer the questions.

Andrea Wright to Trevor - (18 July 2017)

Hello Trevor,

First, my apologies, I'd misinterpreted your reply.

I had thought that the questions were rhetorical and had been asked in that way to indicate a list of beliefs that would lead to a person being damned.

I am, of course, happy to answer your questions with what I hope is gentleness and reverence.

Do I think it is OK for two men to love each other?

Well, it's not something for me personally, but I think it's better for people to love each other than to hate each other.

I think the way that you phrase the question is, perhaps, a little over-dramatic.

Love between two men needn't be all about "A man sticking his johnson in another man's butt". Just as marriage between a man and a woman isn't only about "A man sticking his johnson in a woman's hoo-ha". Both ought to be about love.

I think the same applies to love between two women. Not for me personally, but love is better than hate.

The sexual relationship thing with horses is illegal in the UK where I live, and I'm happy with it remaining illegal. So I'm not OK with that.

I'd be happy to provide more information on why I think this way if you're interested.

And as I said before, I'd be honestly interested if you're able to answer my questions.

Why do you personally believe that what the Bible says is what God says and that this is the truth?

And also what it is that leads you to interpret the things that are in the Bible in the way that you do?

Thanks again,

Andrea  

Trevor  Andrea Wright - (19 July 2017)

So you answered poorly. God's Words is crystal clear on who WILL NOT enter the kingdom of heaven and He leaves no room for personal interpretation over whom will not enter.

It is why sodomites and their allies reject the Orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures and created the blasphemous "Queen" James Bible in order to justify their continuing in sins. It is why Romans 1 declared without apology "God gave them up to their own lusts," and at the end of Romans 1, St. Paul, without blinking, declared those who approved of the sodomites lifestyle were also worthy of death.

That's why people of your ilk have done more damage to Christianity because you opt to use "pick and choose" of the Scriptures to justify continuing in sins instead of adhering to how the Scriptures were interpreted by the Church through the ages.  

Andrea Wright  Trevor - (19 July 2017)

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for your reply.

I notice that you didn't answer my two questions.

In reading 1 Peter 3:15 I think it's saying that Christians should be always prepared to explain why they believe what they believe.

And this is all that I'm asking.

Mentioning specific verses from Scripture helps me understand what you believe, but not why you believe it.

I'm not quite sure how I've done damage to Christianity since I don't claim to be a Christian, I'm just a person that's trying to reach out and find out why you believe what you believe.

I notice that towards the end of Romans 1 Paul includes people that "have no love, no mercy" in the list of the types of people that are in trouble.

Verse 32 says "Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

To me this seems to be talking about people who not only do these things but also approve of others doing these things.

I checked it in several different translations and they all seem to say this.

It doesn't seem to say anything about people who do not actively condemn a certain lifestyle. It's about people who adopt that lifestyle and also approve of it in others.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.

Either way, it would help me if you would explain how and why it was that you came to Christ.

Also, do you believe that all Scripture should be understood literally without any room for interpretation - for example the account of creation in the book of Genesis.

Thanks again for your time.

Andrea.

Trevor to Andrea Wright - (19 July 2017)

Why should I answer you when you appear to be sympathetic toward fags?

Andrea Wright to Trevor - (19 July 2017)

Hi Trevor,

Thank you again for replying.

You asked why you should answer me.

Well, I've been looking at 1 Peter chapter 3 again. I've included verses 8 to 17 below so you can read it in context - it's taken from the New American Bible (Revised Edition), but reads pretty much the same in other translations.

In saying "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope" it does use the word "anyone" - it doesn't say "anyone except people that you think are sympathetic toward fags".

To use your phraseology, the meaning seems "crystal clear."

So really, if you were to answer me I'd see it as an act of obedience to the Scriptures that you believe to be the word of God.

Thank you,
Andrea

The passage in full (1 Peter 3: 8-17) reads as follows:

Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble. Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. For:

“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep the tongue from evil
and the lips from speaking deceit,
must turn from evil and do good,
seek peace and follow after it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears turned to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against evildoers.”

Now who is going to harm you if you are enthusiastic for what is good? But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.
 

Andrea Wright to Trevor - (21 July 2017) Pending

Hello again Trevor,
At the moment I'm assuming that you either don't have an answer to my questions or that you're not prepared to answer them because you believe that I appear to be "sympathetic towards fags."
If you don't have an answer then it leaves me saddened that you aren't able to explain what it is that led you to having the beliefs that you have and yet are so vocal in expounding them.
If you aren't prepared to answer me because you believe that I'm "sympathetic to fags" then I'm saddened because it seems that you choose to be disobedient to the very Scriptures that you hold to be absolutely true in all circumstances.
The other possibility is that you haven't had the time to answer but that you will do in due course. If this is the case then I apologise unreservedly for jumping to conclusions and await your response with interest and also humility.
Thank you again,
Andrea

As at 7 August 2017 there has been no reply from Trevor.

Marriage … what is it all about?

Today I read that:

The Catholic Church today told worshippers they have a ‘duty’ to resist Government plans on gay marriage.

A letter from two senior archbishops, read in 2,500 parish churches during Mass, argued changes would reduce the significance of marriage

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113429/Catholic-Church-steps-war-gay-marriage-letter-worshippers-warning-profoundly-radical-step.html#ixzz1op7z8okr

The Guardian mentions it here.

The Washington Post here.

And the BBC here.

There are hundreds of articles from different sources that have appeared within the past 24 hours.

The text of the letter is here. In case it disappears from that link I’ve copied it here.

I don’t know how the people that have heard the letter being read out to them have felt about it.

In looking around a little I did come across some refreshing places.

Queering the Church  which has also led me to the Coalition for Equal Marriage which has a petition with the following wording:

I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair 

I’ve just signed it. It’s worth reading the thoughts they have about the uniqueness of marriage and the consequences of changing the legal definition of marriage.

The content at Queering the Church here and here is especially heartening, somehow.

I also found Press for Change which has some interesting stuff relating particularly to trans-gendered people.

The text of the letter from the Bishops is here. I’ve interlaced it with some of my own thoughts in italics. And a lot of people have similar thoughts.

---

A Letter on Marriage from the President and Vice-President of the Bishops’ Conference of
England and Wales

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,

This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.

Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.

I’ve seen it expressed, by Catholic’s, that what follows is the vision of some Bishops and church leaders. Rather than being the Catholic vision.

I believe that not all Catholics share this vision.

However, I don’t know enough about leadership, church structure and authority in the Catholic church to be sure about what difference this actually makes.

I know, from experience, that in some churches, if the leaders say this the way it is, then if you think it is some other way you have to go and join a different church.

The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the
Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion.

I’m not sure anyone really knows where the roots of the institution of marriage lie. It’s quite a mish-mash

I have a feeling, though, that it’s more about love and commitment than it is about gender.

We are human … and built into us there seems to be a need to both give and to receive love. I don’t see that gender needs to be the main issue in this.

A man and a woman can complement each other … but so can two men or two women.

The natural reproductive pattern of the human species is about gender. But does marriage necessarily include reproduction? Heterosexual partners don’t usually have to make marriage vows that include reproduction. There are promises to accept and love children but not usually to procreate. At least that’s how this reads to me.

Nature itself is a contradictory kind of thing. I don’t believe that marriage is an institution with laws that are governed and dictated by nature.

Contrarily, I suspect that religions and societies developed the concept of marriage to define a structure in which stable , loving and committed relationships could develop and flourish.

Because of this I think that it’s fair enough to redefine it if the redefinition serves to extend this stability to other people.

Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.

People understand that the ideal of marriage is a lifelong commitment. No one that I know of plans on redefining this.

My own feelings, though, are that it is a commitment to do things like:

- to accept children lovingly 

- to be true in good times and bad, sickness and health

- to love and to honour

It’s not about promising to reproduce. Nor does it necessarily have to be a commitment between a man and a woman, unless we choose to make it that way.

Love and commitment are the things at the foundation of society.

Marriage provides a way for people to promise openly that they will love each other and commit themselves to that love and to each other.

Marriage actually guarantees nothing.

It’s the love and commitment that do the work.

Marriage is a vehicle through which the love and commitment can be expressed.

If the definition of marriage is changed so that people who happen to be of the same sex can make the same promises of love and commitment doesn’t that have the power to strengthen society rather than weaken it?

 

There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that  the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.

I don’t have a problem with this, other than to say it represents an ideal. An ideal that is sometimes impossible to achieve.

In the real world parents die, wars happen and families break.

In the real world some children would be better living well outside their natural families.

And some children would even be better outside of the institutions that have pledged to take care of them when they have no family.

Stable relationships are a good thing. I think most people accept this. But I don’t see that stability necessarily involves reproduction and child rearing. It involves love and commitment.

The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: ‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a  partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the
dignity of a sacrament.’

These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity.

This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.

In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its
sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.

In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.

The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.

Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to
the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.

We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.

I don’t know … it seems like the meaning of marriage here is being reduced to being all about having children.

It’s almost as though someone has sat down and though … “what is it that same sex partnerships can’t do” and then based a whole argument upon it.

My own feelings are that children are best brought up within loving and stable relationships. And that people who have children should try to make it work that way.

I can see why religions then say that people should marry before having children. As an expression of love and commitment.

But I’m not at all sure about the way it’s being twisted the other way around. Implying that you should have children if you want to be married, rather than if you want to have children you should get married.

Children … and grown ups as well … thrive best when they are loved and when they know that this love is stable and committed.

In one of the Bible passages that I like a lot (and I know, I am as picky as anyone) it says a lot about love but nowhere does it say that love is exclusively a man and a woman thing.

Changing the legal definition of marriage may have profound results.

With every blessing.

Most Reverend Vincent Nichols

Archbishop of Westminster

President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Most Reverend Peter Smith

Archbishop of Southwark

Vice-President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

---

 

I know there's more than a single point of view for everything.

So, if you’re aged 16 or over and live in the UK … take a look at http://www.c4em.org.uk/ and think about it. And also take a look at http://c4m.org.uk/ to see the opposite side.

And then … be reasonable minded bout this and sign the petition at http://www.c4em.org.uk/ 

Popes, Cardinals, Catholicism, Evil and King James – an Andrea’s eye View

Recently the Pope visited the UK.

It was a mixed kind of event.

The biggest challenge seemed to be the Catholic Church’s involvement in child abuse over the years.

In addition to expressing sorrow over this … the Pope expressed concern that religious views … especially Christian views … maybe especially Catholic views … and people … are being marginalised and their views and values are not being taken into account sufficiently.

But I can see why the un-churched might not see a problem in this. Looking around the world, religion has a very mixed history.

It isn’t all bad … but bad enough to mean that almost anyone involved in any mainstream religion ought to be prepared to apologise for past misdeeds before suggesting agendas for the present and the future. And some way of making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

I guess the same goes for political parties and a lot of non-religious groups as well.

Cardinal Walter Kasper hit the news in the UK just before the Papal Visit … though what he actually said in the context in which he meant it to be heard is something that the media seemed to lose track of.

For a little while I gave some thought to the Church’s role in past misdemeanours.

I typed the following search into the little box displayed at www.google.co.uk

is the catholic church evil

The second result in the list that came back tells me that God Hates the Catholic Church!

The thing I find difficult to understand is that the person that wrote this stuff expected to be taken seriously.

Even harder to understand is that some people agree.

And even harder … how can someone write all that stuff and then … at the very top of the page in bright red letters make the following quote:

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate." -Proverb 8:13 

My mind is boggling.

I then took a look at the home page: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/

Oh my gosh!

Which led me to: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/why.htm where Mr Stuart tells me:

If you are using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, and continue to do so after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan, or just don't care.

At this point Andrea breathes a sigh of relief … no NIV for me.

There’s a part of me that thinks – so what? What if David J. Stewart thinks this?

And another part of me thinks – David J. Stewart should not go unchallenged.

So … here goes … in my opinion … David J. Stewart is a misguided man who misunderstands the book which he proclaims to be divinely inspired and infallible. He’s lost touch with the God that is described in the New Testament. He has made the book that He reads into his God.

I guess that he might see me as an abomination … under the influence of Satan. The only way I know to disagree with that it to discuss things rationally and reasonably. But maybe I’m on a loser when disagreeing with the infallible.

The letter that Paul wrote to the Galatians says:

... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance …

Or in the 1611 version:

…  the fruit of the spirit is loue, ioy, peace, long suffering, gentlenesse, goodnesse, faith, meekenesse, temperance …

It would be nice to see a little of this at http://www.jesus-is-savior.com. But I’m not holding my breath.

Having spent a little while reading some of this stuff I wondered if there were other people that had similar views on the King James 1611 version of the Bible.

And Google led me here: King James Bible Believers

Mostly it saddens me. It seems that people are willing to buy into infallibility at the cost of their reason.

I left a message in the guest book:

http://kjv1611.org.uk/hivyersay/index.php dated 21 September 2010:

I'm convinced that you are mistaken ... but have the feeling that no amount of discussion will change your mind.
Infallibility - real or imagined - is a difficult thing to enter into a discussion with.

The reply:

Andrea:
You signed our guest book saying we are mistaken. What may we ask 'are we mistaken about'? What article are you referring to?
Webmaster

 

It begins with the infallibility of KJV 1611 thing. And the way that “reason” seems to be belittled and scorned whenever it seems to conflict with the infallible.

But it doesn’t end there. I read parts of the article at: http://kjv1611.org.uk/What%20Happens%20to%20Babies%20and%20the%20Retarded%20at%20Death.htm. There was a time when I might have thought the same. But really … to follow this logic to its extreme … wouldn’t it be better if most of humanity had never grown beyond babyhood?

The page that I first visited at this site was: http://kjv1611.org.uk/Questions%20for%20those%20who%20think%20the%20KJV%20Only%20are%20wrong!.htm

Here are the questions from the web site … and my thoughts in italics:

Let me ask you to answer the following questions about my position:

1. How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the AV1611 is infallible?

If there is no hell … then no one.

If there is a hell … then perhaps there is just one person that turned away from Christ because they found it hard to see how anyone could make such a big thing out of this.

And if there is one … perhaps there is another.

2. How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

To read it in the belief that this one translation is infallible requires a leap of faith that, I believe, discredits the word faith. How can it be infallible? It’s a translation. Really? How can it? And what happens when they discover the truth?

3. What is wrong with holding up the AV1611 and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

There are mistakes in the translation. Really. There are.

4. How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?

Which generation? Which language? Where? When? You mean God promised somewhere that there would be a 100% accurate, unequivocal and unambiguous translation of the Bible in English? For ever? Always? 

5. If I am not allowed to believe the AV1611 is infallible, then which version should hold that distinction?

You may believe what you will … but really … honestly … there isn’t one.

6. If no version can hold that distinction, what do you suggest I tell my grand-children the next time they read Psalm 12:6-7?

This would be a start: http://kjvonlydebate.com/2010/03/17/psalm-126-7-preservation/

7. If I am forced to learn Hebrew and Greek before I can study the "words" of God, will you pay for our lessons?

I didn’t mention Hebrew nor Greek. And you do know … they aren’t infallible either. Honestly. 

8. Please tell me why you still "preach from" the AV1611 but do not believe it is infallible?

Actually I don’t. 

9. Which Bible do you use in your private studies and which one is the "best translation"?

None. But if I did … and when I did … looking at different translations added meaning and aided understanding … tended to avoid bigotry. It wasn’t ever about the best translation. It was about understanding and doing.

10. Why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?

Mainly, I think, because you make such an issue of the truth and base the premise of your truth upon what seems to be an untruth. Also … if you cannot leave other people alone, you can expect others to not leave you alone.

So … there you go.

Of course … I am definitely not infallible.

Well … unless I am having a discussion with Sally, Sarah or Katie … in which case everyone knows I am always right. The clue is almost in my name :)

I’ve left the following message in the guestbook dated 27 September 2010:

Thank you for replying to my earlier comment of September 21st.
I believe that you are misguided over the issue of the infallibility of the KVJ1611 version - but also about other things as well.
I've written in a little more length in my blog at: http://andrea-wright.blogspot.com/2010/09/popes-cardinals-catholicism-evil-and.html
I do though, respect your right to your beliefs and also respect that you are prepared to allow people to leave messages on your guest book even where the message is in disagreement with you.
Andrea