BILL GAITHER AND CANDY HEMPHILL CHRISTMAS

[TRUPA129]

Something was said just a while back about something between Candy Hemphill
Christmas and Bill Gaither going on and said it went un-noticed. I guess I
have missed something. What is this referring to?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[KJCSmith1]

>Something was said just a while back about something between Candy Hemphill
>Christmas and Bill Gaither going on and said it went un-noticed.

According to Candy nothing is going on. She is just taking some time off to
spend with her family and travel with her husband is a evganilist (sp?).

[Tony Rush]

"TRUPA129" <trup...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3b9b8...@corp.newsgroups.com>...

> Something was said just a while back about something between Candy Hemphill
> Christmas and Bill Gaither going on and said it went un-noticed. I guess I
> have missed something. What is this referring to?

During the European trip, some brain-dead individual started a rumor
that something was going on between Gaither and Candy by saying that
they were in a hot tub together at one of the hotels. When I heard
it, I talked to some friends who are on the Homecoming series and they
separately told me the same story. There was a hottub, but it was
about 15 feet in diameter and had about 30 other people in it.

But, when Candy left to cut back on her traveling, someone who likes
to spread this type of thing brought it back up and it apparently has
stuck in the minds of some people. There was nothing to it and
certainly nothing for anyone to be ashamed of.

Tony

[Walter Lane]

It was bad form to use the hottub, 30 people or not.

--
If you liked LEFT BEHIND,
look over FEARMONGER
@ http://www.horroresq.com

"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.01090...@posting.google.com...

[Cre8inator]

>It was bad form to use the hottub, 30 people or not.

Bad Form?

Would a Swimming pool would be okay?

How about the ocean?

Or maybe a hot tub filled with cold water!

What about a sidewalk on a rainy day?

GIVE ME A BREAK!

What's "bad form" is all of this Pharisee crap that's going on here. Do any of
you actually KNOW what happened? Did it happen to you? I don't care who you
know or think you know...YOU DON'T KNOW.

The good news is...it's not your job to know.

If you really think that Bill Gaither and Candy Christmas have "issues," why
not pray for them INSTEAD of stoning them? Really, a posting like this has no
business in the public eye of Christianity. Christians are the only species
who still eat their own.

Put an end to this.

What's worse?

...possibly having been in a hot tub with 30 people...

...or this psycho-religious, pompus crap that's going on here?

How pathetic do we have to get before we wake up and smell our own house
burning down around us?

Nuff Said.

[TRUPA129]

Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying all this. I hadn't heard that at all. I
figured it was some stupid rumor that got started. Thanks Tony.

Matt
****************************************************************

"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.01090...@posting.google.com...

[Tony Rush]

I'd have to agree to with Cre8inator. I think the only problem is
the possible connotations about the word "hot tub". If 30 of
the Homecoming Friends had been at a pool party, would that
have been any different? For some reason, some people always
take the words "hot tub" to mean sensuousness or sexuality.
Personally, I think they're pretty relaxing. LOL

Tony

Walter Lane <walte...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:9ni8rf$7uof2$1...@ID-71359.news.dfncis.de...

[REvans2311]

>I'd have to agree to with Cre8inator. I think the only problem is
>the possible connotations about the word "hot tub". If 30 of
>the Homecoming Friends had been at a pool party, would that
>have been any different?

You haven't heard from me in a while but I just have to say this. I can't
think of 20 of the homecoming friends that I would want to see in a pool, much
less 30 of them!

A homecoming pool party! Would you like ice in your geritol????????

[Carol LeFevre]

Call me old-fashioned, but what in tarnation goes on at these tapings?
Surely I am not the only one here who finds this odd. Maybe some of the
other rumors I have heard about (NOT Candy & Bill) are true after all.
Maybe there really is not much difference between the secular and sacred
singers. Silly me. I hold (held, now) "Christians" to a higher
standard than the world. Maybe that is why my Bible says to avoid the
very appearance of evil. No wonder rumors started... a bunch of people,
some with spouses, some without, far from home, sitting around in
bathing suits in a hot tub? Come to think of it, I bet I am the only
one who finds this unacceptable.
Bro. Elden...any thoughts on this?
CL

[Yaderp]

You aren't alone in your thinking.

--

__________

Yaderp

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!

_
Carol LeFevre <Slopto...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21767-3B...@storefull-124.iap.bryant.webtv.net...

[M. Elden Gaines]

"Carol LeFevre" <Slopto...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21767-3B...@storefull-124.iap.bryant.webtv.net...

The whole thing does sound a little curious, if it indeed took place during
a taping session.

I personally don't go in for mixed bathing, but then, most would find this
pretty tame, these days. I had a pastor friend of mine call me one time to
invite my family and me to his place for a barbecue. He said, "Bring your
trunks." I said, "I don't own any." He immediately jumped down my throat. I
said, "Wait a minute! I did not accuse you of anything. I did not ask you to
change anything. I did not even hint at anything that should have you upset.
Why are you coming down on me because I choose not to participate in this
particular type of activity? When we arrived, he, his wife, two daughters
and son were all in bathing suits. Within minutes all were robed or changed
into other clothing. The Christian community is much quicker to revile than
the worldly. I have experienced this on many occasions.

This same preacher once asked my opinion on some literature he was
considering for his Sunday School department. I looked it over and handed it
back without immediate comment. He said, "Well, what do you think?" I said,
"I would not use it in my church." He asked me why. I said because the
Scripture quotations are from the NIV. His hackles went up, as he said, "Oh,
I see, the King James was good enough for Paul and Silas, and it's good
enough for you!" I replied, quietly, "You are speaking out of ignorance."
"What do you mean?", he replied. I said, "If you did any serious study and
research into this subject you would speak a lot differently. He huffed
some, so I said, "Look, you use the NASB and admonish your congregation to
use the NASB, NIV or other so-called modern translations. Let me open your
eyes to something. You are the pastor of a pentecostal church (as was I), so
let's suppose you decide some Sunday to preach on Mark 16:9-20. Do not be
surprised if someone in your congregation happens to read the side notes,
which say "These verses are not in the "best and oldest manuscripts" (quotes
are mine) and questions the Scriptural authority of the message you just
preached. What will you say? Since you haven't given it any serious
thought, consideration or study, how will you respond? Or what if one of
them uses the RSV (or the NRSV) and brings it to ask you why these verses
don't even exist in their Bible?

The Scripture admonition is clear. "Study to show thyself approved." It is
not, "Blindly accept whatever someone sets before you, accepting lame
excuses and ridiculous remarks about how difficult it is to read and
understand the Scripture." We are all to strive for the approval of the Lord
in understanding and practical application of the Scripture in our lives
each day. To do less is to court spiritual ruin and perhaps miss the trumpof
God. I strive to so live that others will observe and question why, so I
will have the opportunity to share with them. Religion can be argued.
Doctrine can be denied. A personal testimony to the saving grace and
knowledge of the Lord Jesus can never be refuted!!! I one had a discussion
with a muslim. We chatted for some time over breakfast. When I had to return
to work, I said, "Let me leave you with one thought. When all is said and
done, it comes down to this one thing. I can walk on the grave of your God;
I defy you to find the grave of mine."

Elden

"Earth shall keep her jubilee."

[Cre8inator]

Let's all Damn the Haitians to hell. Yes, even the so called "Christian" ones!
Do you know, I have personally seen them (both men and women) bathing side by
side...totally nude...and even in the prescence of children!? Oh yes. I laid
hands on a nude woman once. She was also Haitian. She was dying from AIDS as
I recall. Shame on me, laying hands on a bare breasted woman for the sake of
her healing. I had to help an elderly man urinate from time to time. I won't
tell you what that involved.

I gues I just had to confess my sins!

Oh no! Wait! I just remembered...my HEART was PURE. I didn't sin! At least,
not in those instances. Thank God.

That's right, God looks at the heart.

The heart.

The heart.

I suppose that people who are hung up on the external appearance will have a
difficult time understanding what a HEART is.

Have a heart.

And what I mean by that is...
...mind your own heart.

Let God worry about the Haitians, the hot tubs, and me.

You worry about you.

Contrary to what some may think...
...God doesn't need us. He wants us.

I KNOW what goes on at Gaither tapings and let me say this...

...I have seen MUCH MORE CHRIST LIKE LIVING at Gaither tapings than I have seen
here. And I'm not just trying to get the last word. I mean it. The
Homecoming artists are true examples of Christ...even and especially BEHIND
closed doors.

What is sad is that many of those who read those words would rather believe the
rumors and hearsay about hot tubs than my personal, first hand account of what
is real. What a bunch of witch hunters!

Speak of what you know. And unless you've been there...you DON'T know.

Once again...this crap needs to stop.

NOW.

How many souls have been lost while we pathetic ones burn God's time on such
hearsay.

God have mercy on our souls.

[RayDunakin]

<< No wonder rumors started... a bunch of people,
some with spouses, some without, far from home, sitting around in bathing suits
in a hot tub? Come to think of it, I bet I am the only one who finds this
unacceptable. >>

Yes, you probably are. At least, I sure hope so!

[RayDunakin]

<< What is sad is that many of those who read those words would rather believe
the rumors and hearsay about hot tubs than my personal, first hand account of
what is real. What a bunch of witch hunters!
Speak of what you know. And unless you've been there...you DON'T know.
Once again...this crap needs to stop. NOW.
How many souls have been lost while we pathetic ones burn God's time on such
hearsay. >>

Amen! It always amazes me how so many Christians are so quick to assume the
worst about everyone else, and so quick to believe any sick rumor or lie that
goes around.

[Norman Graham]

Thank you so much for your post. Before I read it, I was seriously thinking
of dropping out of this newsgroup because of the number of posts I felt were
somewhat unChristian in tone. Your post made me realize there are others
following the two most important commandants -- love God, love each other.
Thank you again and God bless everyone who posts to this newsgroup.

"Cre8inator" <cre8i...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20010910231938...@mb-fa.aol.com...

[Royce Alverson]

i have a hot tub.....
i'm not going to hell, am I?

this is a joke.

Royce

"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.01090...@posting.google.com...

[Tony Rush]

Carol LeFevre <Slopto...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21767-3B...@storefull-124.iap.bryant.webtv.net...

> Call me old-fashioned, but what in tarnation goes on at these tapings?

Uh, I don't think you made your point sufficiently clear, but I assume you
think
that there is something wrong with the Homecoming pool scenario. To
each her own.

But as far as "what goes on at these tapings", I have no idea what you're
referring
to. All the Homecoming groups stay at the same hotel when they tape on
location. Is it not natural to assume that many of them would use the hotel
facilities?

Tony

[M. Elden Gaines]

Whoa!! You are wound more than just a little bit tight! Did someone push
your buttons? I really don't recall anyone attacking you. In fact, there
weren't ANY personal attacks in this thread. You need to stop stressing so
much. It wouldn't hurt for you to apply a little of the outward appearance
in you tirades, so as to "let not your "good" be evil spoken of."

Elden

"Cre8inator" <cre8i...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20010910231938...@mb-fa.aol.com...

[Cre8inator]

Yes, Elden. People like you push my buttons. What was the point of your
post...to defend those who are spreading rumors? It certainly wasn't to calm
me down. So what was the point? To make me look like a fool? To feel like
you had a part? Next time, try posting to make a difference in our world and
save yourself the trouble of nagging those who are actually disturbed at the
obvious, judgemental jabs that have been poked at.

How would Elden feel if people he'd never met were talking trash about him in
this newsgroup?

How would Elden defend himself?

Everything he would say would make him look more foolish. Perhaps Elden would
feel better if there were others taking his side and defending his good name.

I trust you are a good person. Please, next time you post to a situation such
as this...make it count for something more than how cool your words look
online.

You don't know me. So what if I am disturbed. Back off. I'm defending my
friends. At the very least, I would hope you could respect that.

Oh, by the way, it's okay to be angry...even mad sometimes. Not to compare,
but even Jesus got furious from time to time.

[M. Elden Gaines]

What Jesus exhibited was righteous indignation, which He alone had the right
to do.

Actually, my post was in response to a question directed at me by Carol.

I have had to defend myself, more than once, in this group.

I don't recall anyone trying to make you look like a fool.

I don't need to "feel like I have a part."

I certainly wasn't defending those who are spreading rumors.

Don't worry, I'm backing off. Wouldn't want anyone going postal here. Our
nation has seen enough violence for a while.

Elden

"Cre8inator" <cre8i...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message

news:20010912002139...@ng-bd1.aol.com...

[Yaderp]

What a self serving diatribe. And by the way, I didn't realize Paul and the
others read from the KJV! How enlightening. I always supposed they read
Aramaic or Greek. What a silly assumption on my part.

--

__________

Yaderp

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!

_
M. Elden Gaines <eldengaines@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vLbn7.34280$U5.267...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

[TommyDale]

Don't be offended by someone else's convictions. Turn the other cheek
if you really think there was anything personal aimed at you (which it
wasn't). This newsgroup really enjoys chewing up and spitting out
people who post their beliefs. It is a perfect reflection of what's
wrong with the current Church.

As far as Candy, Bill or anyone else in a hot tub -- if you don't want
rumors to start, avoid the very appearance of wrongdoing. Don't give
Satan the chance to destroy your ministry through some "tongue
wagger". Just as a pastor should never go behind a closed door to
counsel with a woman, giving the enemy ammunition is just a dumb move,
innocent or not.

cre8i...@aol.comnojunk (Cre8inator) wrote in message news:<20010912002139...@ng-bd1.aol.com>...

[M. Elden Gaines]

Read the post again. That was a statement by another Pastor, and obviously
facetiously intended.

Elden

"Yaderp" <Yad...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9nnprp$9t6m$1...@news3.infoave.net...

[Tony Rush]

> As far as Candy, Bill or anyone else in a hot tub -- if you don't want
> rumors to start, avoid the very appearance of wrongdoing. Don't give
> Satan the chance to destroy your ministry through some "tongue
> wagger". Just as a pastor should never go behind a closed door to
> counsel with a woman, giving the enemy ammunition is just a dumb move,
> innocent or not.

Tommy, again the story that I confirmed was that it's inaccurate to say
that "Bill and Candy" were in a hot tub together. That implies that it
was only them and not with an additional 20 people present.

While others may believe what they see fit, I don't think that's anything
that is "the appearance of wrongdoing" and I definitely think it's different
than a pastor being "behind a closed door" with a woman.

[Tony Rush]

> As far as Candy, Bill or anyone else in a hot tub -- if you don't want
> rumors to start, avoid the very appearance of wrongdoing. Don't give
> Satan the chance to destroy your ministry through some "tongue
> wagger". Just as a pastor should never go behind a closed door to
> counsel with a woman, giving the enemy ammunition is just a dumb move,
> innocent or not.

Tommy, again the story that I confirmed was that it's inaccurate to say

[Just Allan]

As most know, I live in Australia. We have a Tongan fellow in our
congregation. A few years ago he was telling me that in his country,
even small children are not bathed together. Brothers have never seen
their own sisters naked. They respect the difference between a man &
woman's body and undestand the problems it can bring when excuses are
made and the "walls" are taken down. Divorce, infidelity,
homosexuality, veneral disease AND rape is non existant.

This same fellow approached me one day and asked what it meant when
someone was "gay". When I explained to him, he was so horrified, he
nearly lost his lunch. I also had the same experience with a lady
from Zimbabwe, Africa. Simply unheard of their society.

On this issue, these "heathen natives" are more Christian than
Australia, the USA and other western societies and they openly put us
to shame.

Allan.

[M. Elden Gaines]

"Just Allan" <Just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:afk1qtsel21t3frmh...@4ax.com...

As the Scripture says, "For when the Gentiles (unbelievers or uninstructed
in the Word), which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in
the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which show
the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing
witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one
another;"

Elden

Elden

> Allan.

[David Bruce Murray]

M. Elden Gaines wrote in message ...

>The whole thing does sound a little curious, if it indeed took place during
>a taping session.

I was just re-reading this and wondered if you intended it to be funny. I
laughed when I read it, but then, sometimes I laugh when I shouldn't. I just
had a mental picture of Burger at the piano and all the Homecoming friends
sitting around a big hot tub singing "Give The World A Smile." :o)

I think it was the word "during" that set me off, which, if taken literally,
means cameras were rolling and they were singing at the time.

David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@rfci.net
Articles: www.rfci.net/dbmurray and www.musicforce.com
Transcriptions: www.musicscribe.com
Classical Piano: www.mp3.com/virtualvirtuoso
Southern Sounds Quartet: www.mp3.com/ssq
---Making Hay While The Sun Shines---

[David Bruce Murray]

M. Elden Gaines wrote in message ...

>I personally don't go in for mixed bathing, but then, most would find this
>pretty tame, these days. I had a pastor friend of mine call me one time to
>invite my family and me to his place for a barbecue. He said, "Bring your
>trunks." I said, "I don't own any."

I only own one pair, but that's mainly because I never learned how to swim
and also because I'm a fat tub of lard.

>This same preacher once asked my opinion on some literature he was

>considering for his Sunday School department.<snipped etc.>

Good points, all. I think that if you have a congregation that will be
hindered in their spiritual walk by their preacher using anything other than
KJV (which is the case in many places), by all means, use the KJV. Some may
be surprised at me for saying that, but I've taken the example of Paul to
heart lately in a study on the book of Acts. He ate raw meat when he was
with the Gentiles and shaved his head when he was with the Jews in
Jerusalem. Whatever it took to relate to them and get them to listen to the
Gospel is what he did.

Now, I'm not downing modern bibles, because I think there are people who can
benefit from knowing the history of how we got them and why there are slight
variances in some of them. More than that, the undeniable benefit is that
modern English words are easier to understand. I personally never liked to
read the original Living Bible, because it was a paraphrase that often
distorted the original context, but I know numerous folks who were able to
gain truths from it that would have been difficult for them otherwise. Since
the New Living Translation has been released, it's become one of my favorite
translations to read for personal devotions.

The main point you made about speaking out of ignorance is one I agree with
wholeheartedly. That's something that is often done regardless of the
translation that's used. My pastor gave an example of the word "carriage"
being used when David took provisions to his brothers fighting in Saul's arm
y. He said he heard a preacher one time who described the "carriage" in
question and how wonderful it must have been. The preacher's point was that
"God's man" would be blessed with material things. My pastor said it never
sounded right at the time. Later he learned that "carriage" in that context
was really referring to the provisions themselves, the things David was
"carrying." :o)

[M. Elden Gaines]

"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:eJfo7.290507$VV1.21...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> The main point you made about speaking out of ignorance is one I agree
with
> wholeheartedly. That's something that is often done regardless of the
> translation that's used. My pastor gave an example of the word "carriage"
> being used when David took provisions to his brothers fighting in Saul's
arm
> y. He said he heard a preacher one time who described the "carriage" in
> question and how wonderful it must have been. The preacher's point was
that
> "God's man" would be blessed with material things. My pastor said it never
> sounded right at the time. Later he learned that "carriage" in that
context
> was really referring to the provisions themselves, the things David was
> "carrying." :o)
>

A far better example (worse might be a better word) is a preacher near here,
preaching on the radio on the story where Paul cast the familiar spirit out
of the maiden who was divining, or fortune telling. He said she was a
"smooth-sayer", rather than a soothsayer. He really played this up, talking
about how she was a real smooth talker. Of course this is just plain
mis-reading, rather than mis-interpretation of a word (through lack of the
use of the simplest Bible tools) as in your example. He was comical, in one
sense, but pathetic in another. Here is a man who has been an evangelist and
a pastor for far too many years, who makes no attempt to read correctly, let
alone study.

Elden

[M. Elden Gaines]

> David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote in message

news:Vmfo7.313955$NK1.29...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

>
> M. Elden Gaines wrote in message ...
> >The whole thing does sound a little curious, if it indeed took place
during
> >a taping session.
>
> I was just re-reading this and wondered if you intended it to be funny. I
> laughed when I read it, but then, sometimes I laugh when I shouldn't. I
just
> had a mental picture of Burger at the piano and all the Homecoming friends
> sitting around a big hot tub singing "Give The World A Smile." :o)
>
> I think it was the word "during" that set me off, which, if taken
literally,
> means cameras were rolling and they were singing at the time.
>

I had not intended for it to be funny. I really was referring to if the
behavior in question took place in relation to the gathering for the purpose
of the taping session, not actually during the taping. I can see where your
mental image of the latter would seem amusing to you.

Elden

[Just Allan]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 04:30:02 GMT, "David Bruce Murray"
<dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote:

>He ate raw meat when he was
>with the Gentiles and shaved his head when he was with the Jews in
>Jerusalem. Whatever it took to relate to them and get them to listen to the
>Gospel is what he did.

Definitely not trying to be difficult here, but I've been looking for
a while, and I can't find anywhere in Acts where Paul ate raw
meat...!? Where is that?

Also, concerning his head being shaved, the verse reads:

"And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his
leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him
Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a
vow."

The reason for his head shaving is clearly stated, "for he had a vow."
I don't see it says he did it "for he was trying to relate". This
idea is also easily dismissed, since just a few words later he meets
Priscilla & Aquila, who (I think) were romans and together they
travelled of all places to Cenchrea of Corinth (about 48 miles west of
Athens, noted for its wealth, luxurious and immoral habits), and then
on to Ephesus - a city whose population was mainly from Athens and was
noted for containing the Temple of Diana, (her main shrine) and the
largest theatre in the world, holding 50,000 spectators (to watch
battles of man versus beast). Then Paul went on to Caesarea, capital
of the Roman province of Judaea. It was the seat of governors,
procurators and the Roman troop headquarters - the great Palestine
Gentile city, adorned with Roman-styled buildings of great
splendour...

...In other words, the most worldly, unchristian cities he could
possibly have visited - and as a roman, with his head shaved - because
he was trying to "relate"? It seems appropriate to say, "hardly". In
fact, the direct opposite. A shaven-headed (or otherwise) roman
preaching the "foolishnes" of the Jews, would have definitely been an
irritation or even a joke to the many romans in those cities -
gentiles - the ones God selected Paul to preach to.

Also, Paul in Acts 16 circumcises Timotheus - putting him through this
suffering only to please the Jews. This is later denounced in Acts 15
as unnecessary. Later in Galatians 2, Paul himself denounces this
same practice and goes on to challenge Peter for similar behaviour
(adopting the practices of those you are visiting) or, being a
man-pleaser to fit into the crowd.

So Paul shaved his head "for he had a vow" - not in order to relate to
anybody else. And if anyone claims he _did_ shave his head to "fit in
with the crowd", in Galatians Paul has now realised and condemned such
ignorant practices, which wipes away support for his previous error.

What I think is wonderful is all of this clearly shows that what Paul
wrote in 1 Cor 9:20-22 is NOT speaking what so many today twist the
scriptures to mean. (That we should live & look like a biker to win a
biker, for example.)

>More than that, the undeniable benefit is that
>modern English words are easier to understand.

Many, many people think othewise. When I wasn't a Christian, I mocked
them - because their Bible had "thee's & thou's" in it. But when I
became a Christian, I realised how important this language is to
understanding the depth of the Bible. Prayeth - "to pray and to
continue to pray".

Experience teaches that newer rarely means better quality in anything.
Toys, cars, BUILDINGS... All of these get more "modern", with more
wonderful features. But cars are more unreliable and break down more
than they've ever done before, toys are in the trash before the week
is out and skyscrapers come crashing down, killing hundreds/thousands.
My car is 21 years old and will still exist when most of today's
models are rust or their electronics has failed or been replaced
several times. Modern toys, and electronic appliances have power
supplies knowingly designed in such a way as to destroy themselves
when component values change in a short time - so you must buy another
TV asap. Skyscrapers are just so marvellous - look at how much we can
fit in such a small space! But several smaller buildings would have
meant a reduced-attractive target and perhaps dozens dead instead of
hundreds/thousands. Simplistic? Of course. True nonetheless.

My point is, most modern Bible versions make Scripture unrecognisable
in many instances. They alter the meaning in many places. In one
example I can remember, Paul at Mars hill tells the idol-worshipping
people they are "too superstitious". In the modern versions, they
become "very religious" - almost as if he's giving them a hearty slap
on the back for their idolatry, and going on to introduce the only
idol presently unknown to them - Almighty God. Just add Him to the
list.

I hear the new versions are also translated from 1% (or thereabouts)
of the ancient texts - which cannot even agree with each other in many
places. Whereas on the other hand, the 99% (or thereabouts) of
manuscripts the KJV is translated from, are in agreement. There are
many other facts that support why an english-speaking Christian should
prefer the KJV - such as modern versions implying that Jesus Christ is
the same person as satan, but they are overlooked by people because
people don't like change or feeling they just might be in error.

Perhaps the biggest fact I've seen that loudly proclaims support for
choosing to read the KJV, is the lifestyles of those that refuse the
same.

Allan.

[David Bruce Murray]

Just Allan wrote in message ...

>On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 04:30:02 GMT, "David Bruce Murray"
><dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote:
>
>>He ate raw meat when he was
>>with the Gentiles and shaved his head when he was with the Jews in
>>Jerusalem. Whatever it took to relate to them and get them to listen to
the
>>Gospel is what he did.
>
>Definitely not trying to be difficult here, but I've been looking for
>a while, and I can't find anywhere in Acts where Paul ate raw
>meat...!? Where is that?

I'm looking for the reference, but haven't found it yet. I may have been
thinking about a slightly different situation. Paul did agree to the terms
in Acts 15 which prohibit contact with blood, so I'm probably mistaken on
that. However, my point still stands that he did act according to his
audience to get the Gospel across. I'll get into that below.

>Also, concerning his head being shaved, the verse reads:
>
>"And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his
>leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him
>Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a
>vow."

That's in Acts 18:18. It doesn't state why he took that vow. I was referring
to events that happened a couple of years later in Acts 21: 20-26 after the
third missionary journey. The purpose for him paying for the four others to
shave their heads and also purifying himself in the same manner is clearly
stated by James who asked him to do it. The Jewish converts needed to see
him do something that showed respect for the law, and so he agreed.

Here's a better example than that, though. You mention it below, though you
take it the opposite way from me. In Acts 16:3, we see where Paul
circumcised Timothy because of the local Jews. Jews in that region would
have one less thing to object to when Timothy began his ministry there if he
were circumcized. But Paul didn't circumcise Titus who was similar to
Timothy in that he was a Gentile. In fact, he insisted that Titus NOT be
circumcised. See Gal. 2:3-10.

The difference in the two situations is that there were Jews getting in
Paul's face about circumsising Titus, forcing the issue by saying he HAD to
follow that law in order to be saved. The case with Timothy was entirely
different and Paul acted accordingly, thinking of his own experience and
Timothy's effectiveness as a minister in the future. Timothy could preach to
Gentiles who didn't care if he was circumsised or not, but he could also
preach to Jews who did think that was important.

A third example is where Paul says he's actually GLAD he didn't baptize but
very few people! Was Paul against baptism? No, yet he didn't baptize some of
the people he converted. Why would he employ such a double standard if not
for the fact of relating most effectively to whoever is present? Yet some
would argue that water baptism is not only a good thing to do in every case
of conversion, it's also required for salvation. There's some scripture that
implies this to a certain point, but I don't think Paul would have left off
something that was required for salvation.

A fourth example is in Acts 17 where he snatches on the idea of the "Unknown
God" that the heathens had made an idol to and said, "Let me tell you the
facts about this unknown God." This is another case of Paul sizing up the
situation and relating the Gospel in a way the local people could
understand.

A fifth example is in Acts 19:11-12. God works miracles by Paul, allowing
the sick to be healed by cloth that Paul had simply touched in those verses.
In other cases, God does not grant him this power, or at the very least,
Paul chooses not to exercise it. Phil 2:27 and 2 Tim 4:20.

>Also, Paul in Acts 16 circumcises Timotheus - putting him through this
>suffering only to please the Jews. This is later denounced in Acts 15
>as unnecessary.

Later? Acts 15 happens before Acts 16. Paul circumsised Timothy with the
full knowledge that it was not necessary for salvation. He did it for the
purpose that was clearly stated in Acts 16.

> Later in Galatians 2, Paul himself denounces this
>same practice and goes on to challenge Peter for similar behaviour

I fail to find anywhere in Galatians 2 where he says he was wrong to
circumsise Timothy. He confronts Peter for being a hypocrite, but that's not
the same thing.

>(adopting the practices of those you are visiting) or, being a
>man-pleaser to fit into the crowd.

Relating to a crowd is entirely different from being a "manpleaser." Being a
"manpleaser" means compromising God's standards in order to get along with
other humans. I'm certainly not advocating that. Relating to a crowd is like
going to a native tribe and having the decency to learn their language
first.

>So Paul shaved his head "for he had a vow" - not in order to relate to
>anybody else. And if anyone claims he _did_ shave his head to "fit in
>with the crowd", in Galatians Paul has now realised and condemned such
>ignorant practices, which wipes away support for his previous error.

I'm not sure when Galatians was written, but what Peter was doing as
described in Gal 2 is completely different from what Paul did in Acts 21.
It's one thing to get along, preventing a division in the church, as Paul
was doing. It's something else entirely to act one way in front of one
group, and then act like that way is wrong when others are present.

>>More than that, the undeniable benefit is that
>>modern English words are easier to understand.
>
>Many, many people think othewise. When I wasn't a Christian, I mocked
>them - because their Bible had "thee's & thou's" in it. But when I
>became a Christian, I realised how important this language is to
>understanding the depth of the Bible. Prayeth - "to pray and to
>continue to pray".

Getting the depth of the meaning and readability are two completely
different things. I stand by my original statement. I was clearly making a
readability comparison.

"Prevent" in the KJV means to go before someone else. In modern English, it
means to stop something from happening, which is entirely different. If a
person understands distinctions like that, it's true that the KJV often has
meaning that is fuller than some modern translations. There are some modern
translations that are near the KJV in conveying depth, but I agree that many
do not.

>Experience teaches that newer rarely means better quality in anything.
>Toys, cars, BUILDINGS... All of these get more "modern", with more
>wonderful features. But cars are more unreliable and break down more
>than they've ever done before, toys are in the trash before the week
>is out and skyscrapers come crashing down, killing hundreds/thousands.
>My car is 21 years old and will still exist when most of today's
>models are rust or their electronics has failed or been replaced
>several times. Modern toys, and electronic appliances have power
>supplies knowingly designed in such a way as to destroy themselves
>when component values change in a short time - so you must buy another
>TV asap. Skyscrapers are just so marvellous - look at how much we can
>fit in such a small space! But several smaller buildings would have
>meant a reduced-attractive target and perhaps dozens dead instead of
>hundreds/thousands. Simplistic? Of course. True nonetheless.

Well, it's full of holes, actually, but it's 3 AM . . .

>My point is, most modern Bible versions make Scripture unrecognisable
>in many instances. They alter the meaning in many places. In one
>example I can remember, Paul at Mars hill tells the idol-worshipping
>people they are "too superstitious". In the modern versions, they
>become "very religious" - almost as if he's giving them a hearty slap
>on the back for their idolatry, and going on to introduce the only
>idol presently unknown to them - Almighty God. Just add Him to the
>list.

It's cool that we are thinking of the same examples. I'm replying to this as
I read it, but I gave you my take on the idol at Mars Hill above. As to the
difference in interpretation, I agree that "religious" is a poor substitute
for "superstitious." While there are many of the non-legalistic persuation
who would immediately understand that calling someone "religious" is not a
compliment, most non-Christians probably would think that it WAS a
compliment.

>I hear the new versions are also translated from 1% (or thereabouts)
>of the ancient texts - which cannot even agree with each other in many
>places. Whereas on the other hand, the 99% (or thereabouts) of
>manuscripts the KJV is translated from, are in agreement.

Well, I'm no Biblical history expert, but I find those percentages very
difficult to believe. Copies of manuscripts have been discovered that
weren't even around when the KJV was translated and they are older than the
ones that were used for the KJV. At that point, it becomes a matter of
figuring out

>There are
>many other facts that support why an english-speaking Christian should
>prefer the KJV - such as modern versions implying that Jesus Christ is
>the same person as satan, but they are overlooked by people because
>people don't like change or feeling they just might be in error.

That's a new one on me. I've looked many modern translations, including some
that were pretty bad, IMO, but I've never run across that one.

>Perhaps the biggest fact I've seen that loudly proclaims support for
>choosing to read the KJV, is the lifestyles of those that refuse the
>same.

Well sure. The reason for that should be obvious. I've already inferred it
above.

A person whose favorite literture is written by people like Shakespeare,
William Faulkner, and C S Lewis likely has a better command of the English
language than a person who prefers more accessible authors like John
Grisham, Isaac Asimov and Stephen King. People who are truly prefer the KJV
for its superior depth over many modern translations are naturally going to
live the Christian life more effectively. People who are casual toward the
KJV are not going to spend the time it takes to understand it.

My point about this entirely too long message is that you have to meet
people where they are and relate to them on that level. You don't hand a
second grade child "The Sound and The Fury" and demand a book report on it.
They will hit a brick wall. When it comes to evangelism and discipleship, as
Paul did on at so many times in his ministry, you use whatever you possibly
can to get the Truth across in a way that the audience can understand.

We're far from Southern Gospel at this point, so if you want to take this to
email, that will be fine with me. I'd planned to stop at 3 AM, and now it's
3:40. :o)

[Cre8inator]

Are you STILL going at it Elden?

Truly sad.

[M. Elden Gaines]

"Cre8inator" <cre8i...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message

news:20010917000131...@mb-fk.aol.com...

> Are you STILL going at it Elden?
>
> Truly sad.
>

What are you babbling about now? Do you not know how to read a thread? Can
you not see that I am simply responding to a question directed specifically
to me?

Elden

[David Bruce Murray]

Cre8inator wrote in message <20010917000131...@mb-fk.aol.com>...

>Are you STILL going at it Elden?

Going at it? He was answering a comment I had made directly to him . . . a
humorous comment at that . . . nothing argumentative at all.

>
>Truly sad.
>

Yeah, but not on Elden's behalf.

[AnnOnomous1]

Candy was "let go of" by Gloria after trying to put the move on Bill.

In fact, it is alleged that product with her on it is being pulled from the
distributors and will be remixed, and re-packaged.

I can hear Loretta Lynn singing in the background, "you ain't woman enough,
to take my man."

But ain't Candy a pretyhy woman!

"M. Elden Gaines" <eldengaines@@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:qTkp7.39819$YB.153...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

[Tony Rush]

Annonymous said:

>Candy was "let go of" by Gloria after trying to put the move on Bill

>In fact, it is alleged that product with her on it is being pulled

from the
>distributors and will be remixed, and re-packaged.

>I can hear Loretta Lynn singing in the background, "you ain't woman
enough,
to take my man."

This is barely believable. I've noticed that her image isn't used on
any packaging or video ads, but that's just good business - not
promoting something that is no longer there. They did the same thing
when Michael English left.

I seriously doubt that Bill is going to the trouble and massive
expense to have the videos remixed, remastered and repackaged.
Besides, this is old territory. The very subject line of this thread
is a rumor that was started by some idiot who couldn't even invent a
plausible rumor.

Tony

[Clarence Grigsby]

"AnnOnomous1" <AnnOno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3ba69098$1...@flexnet239.uunt.net>...

> Candy was "let go of" by Gloria after trying to put the move on Bill.
>
> In fact, it is alleged that product with her on it is being pulled from the
> distributors and will be remixed, and re-packaged.
>
> I can hear Loretta Lynn singing in the background, "you ain't woman enough,
> to take my man."
>
> But ain't Candy a pretyhy woman!

Yes, Candy is a very lovely lady. I had a sizeable crush on her when I
was a kid. She could have darn near any guy she wants. Why would she
go after 60 something, plain looking Bill? Or thirty year old, plain
looking Clarence for that matter???
As for the product being pulled, I doubt that. As long as it's making
money, I don't see it being taken off the market. It just isn't done
in the music business. At Dottie Rambo's product table at NQC, she had
several releases with her and Buck on them. The Nelons still sell
stuff with Jerry Thompson on it.
Just curious, can you prove any of this? Why are you posting this
annonymously? Would you mind someone forwarding this to Mr. and Mrs.
Gaither and Mrs. Christmas?

[TommyDale]

"AnnOnomous1" <AnnOno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3ba69098$1...@flexnet239.uunt.net>...

> Candy was "let go of" by Gloria after trying to put the move on Bill.
>
> In fact, it is alleged that product with her on it is being pulled from the
> distributors and will be remixed, and re-packaged.
>
> I can hear Loretta Lynn singing in the background, "you ain't woman enough,
> to take my man."
>
> But ain't Candy a pretyhy woman!

Well, this might explain why she is suddenly not listed among the many
regulars in the Gaither Concerts. No listing, no pictures. She
wasn't exactly that busy on her own.

Speaking of her looks, I have always wondered why the cameral always
found her
on all the videos. Was that "eye candy" (no pun intended) to gain
male viewers, and thus sell more tapes? Remember, Jezebel was a
"looker" to Sampson.

[TommyDale]

OOPS! I meant Delilah. But the point is the same: "Beautiful" woman
tries to bring man of God down.

[Norman Graham]

"AnnOnomous1" <AnnOno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ba69098$1...@flexnet239.uunt.net...

> Candy was "let go of" by Gloria after trying to put the move on Bill.
> In fact, it is alleged that product with her on it is being pulled from
the
> distributors and will be remixed, and re-packaged.

This type of posting and gossip is sickening. Even if the poster could
prove it was factual (and there has been no information to show that) it is
not the type of information I need. What good does it do anyone?
Fortunately, it was easy to find out this post was wrong. I went to the
Gaithernet site and on it there is all kinds of complimentary words about
Candy and numerous videos and CDs featuring her (including solo ones) for
sale. If they were going to pull product and remix and repackage it, why
would they be promoting it on their website? Let's discuss legitimate
Gospel Music news and not become the SGM National Enquirer newsgroup

[Rick Ryan]

Candy and I formerly attended the same church. From what I've seen of her, her
husband, and the reputation they have I'd say this rumour is just plain garbage.
It's pretty sickening.

In article <m1Kp7.20401$0%.1911461@news1.busy1.on.home.com>, Norman Graham
says...

[Rick Ryan]

I have to defend Mrs. Christmas here. First of all, she's a very classy lady
with highly reputable character. I attended the same church as Kent/Candy and
can tell you first hand that they both are of high integrity. Second, no offense
to Bill Gaither, but get real. Candy's a beautiful woman with a husband that
takes very good care of himself and is a fine looking man (no smart remarks
please). Why in the world would she go after Gaither?

I'd suggest to you that unless you have some proof you're asking for a lawsuit
here. It's pretty easy to trace connection records back to your real account.
Keep this up and you might find yourself in court soon.

Just a suggestion.

In article <3ba69098$1...@flexnet239.uunt.net>, AnnOnomous1 says...

[Scott Bouldin]

I've not responded to this thread, because in all honesty, this type of
gossip among Christians really does not deserve much attention. But as I've
followed along with some of the responses to the thread, it really started
to hit home within my new ministry. I have just taken a position at my
church as Youth Minister. As I was setting up my schedule for my time
devoted to my ministry (I'm not full time, and I have another full time
position as a loan officer), I came across a touchy subject. I was
tentatively scheduling office hours for when my youth members could come by
my office and discuss any problems or questions that they needed to talk
about. As I was thinking about this, it came to my mind that I would be
opening myself up to the situation where I would be faced with having my
female teenagers coming to the office at times when it would only be myself
and the youth member at the church. I have put this on hold at this point,
pending a solution that will allow someone else to be present nearby during
any time of council with my youth members. I did not have to do this
because I have any temptation towards any of those young ladies, or because
I don't trust those girls. I had to do this because of this same type of
mindless gossip. I would definitely be opening myself up to criticisms and
'questions' from my Christian brothers and sisters. Although it pains me to
think that a child might not get needed counseling in a time of need, I must
make these precautionary measures in order to protect my integrity and the
integrity of our youth ministry at Kennedy Baptist Church. It's sad that we
live in a day an time in which morally sound Christians can be persecuted
and destroyed because of empty allegations. This rumor about Candy and Bill
is very vague and screams with a lack of factual soundness. Yet there have
been several strong statements made about their actions, by people who have
absolutely no idea about what took place. Come on, if they were in a hot
tub, with 20 or so other people present, I really doubt that anything went
on. And if it did, the persecution should not only be towards them, but
towards everyone else that was present and condoning, as well. I wish that
our brothers and sisters could be a little more uplifting towards other
Christians, but I haven't found my four-leaf clover or seen a shooting star
yet! :)

--
J. Scott Bouldin
Vice President
Merchants & Farmers Bank

[KJCSmith1]

>Candy was "let go of" by Gloria after trying to put the move on Bill.

OH PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! Candy thought your post was rather sick.

>In fact, it is alleged that product with her on it is being pulled from the
>distributors and will be remixed, and re-packaged.

Don't think so.

[KJCSmith1]

>Well, this might explain why she is suddenly not listed among the many
>regulars in the Gaither Concerts. No listing, no picture

No it doesnt. I have talked with Candy and she is traveling with her husband
(Kent) and their children.

[David Bruce Murray]

Clarence Grigsby wrote in message
<8ee83561.01091...@posting.google.com>...

>thirty year old, plain looking Clarence

I can attest to that . . . and he can say the same about me and Paul (except
for the 30 year old part)! :o)

[David Bruce Murray]

Norman Graham wrote in message ...

>Fortunately, it was easy to find out this post was wrong. I went to the
>Gaithernet site and on it there is all kinds of complimentary words about
>Candy and numerous videos and CDs featuring her (including solo ones) for
>sale. If they were going to pull product and remix and repackage it, why
>would they be promoting it on their website?

As you've demonstrated, it's often easy to disprove things like this through
simple logic. Unfortunately, so many are incapable of engaging that gear in
their brains. Thanks Norm, for taking the time.

[David Bruce Murray]

Scott Bouldin wrote in message ...

>I was
>tentatively scheduling office hours for when my youth members could come by
>my office and discuss any problems or questions that they needed to talk
>about. As I was thinking about this, it came to my mind that I would be
>opening myself up to the situation where I would be faced with having my
>female teenagers coming to the office at times when it would only be myself
>and the youth member at the church. I have put this on hold at this point,
>pending a solution that will allow someone else to be present nearby during
>any time of council with my youth members.

Scott, unless you are a professional licensed counselor, you should not be
holding private meetings with individual minors at all. Our church recently
drafted a job description for a Youth Minister and a person with much
experience in this area helpfully pointed that out to us. You open yourself
up to lawsuits.

On a related topic, we were also advised of a lady who sent her daughter (a
pre-pubescent child) into Sunday School with her shirt unfastened. The girl
had been told to ask her male Sunday School teacher to button her shirt for
her. When he did, the sorry mother was out in the hall snapping pictures,
trying to defame this man and get some money in a lawsuit.

>I did not have to do this
>because I have any temptation towards any of those young ladies, or because
>I don't trust those girls. I had to do this because of this same type of
>mindless gossip.

I understand what you're saying, and it's true, but I'm saying you can't
afford to trust these girls. I hope I've encouraged you to protect yourself
with what I'm saying. It's not just girls, either. A boy can claim you made
a pass at him and make you look even worse to your church and community.
It's better to not open yourself up for those type situations, not just
because of gossip, but because of the very real possibility of being lied
about by a kid seeking revenge for disciplinary action you took in another
situation, or any number of other scenarios.

[Scott Bouldin]

First of all, the idea of a having to be a professionally licensed counselor
to be able to answer a child's question of 'what does the Bible say
about....' or 'how does God want us to respond to...' is simply ludicrous.
Nothing short of it. Many of those professionally licensed counselors are
the ones telling parents to not discipline children, and to not 'force God
and the Bible down their throats', which usually leads to a youth getting
into a situation that would merit coming to his/her youth minister. I will
never turn away a youth with a question about God's direction for our lives
because I'm not professionally licensed to answer that question. Our small
rural churches like mine cannot afford $40,000-$50,000 a year to hire
someone with tons of degrees and licenses. So, we seek God's direction.

And the entire point of my earlier post was quite clear. I was not saying
that I was going to buck our ridiculous culture and get myself into any
situations. I understand that bad things have happened to good people, and
even more rumors occur than actual events. I specifically said that I am
limiting and restricting my ministry because of the idea of such situations
like you suggested that enter into 'Christians' heads, and in my opinion,
that's very, very sad, because those who are ministered to in a limited
setting are the ones who suffer our simple-mindedness.

Scott

"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:BRWp7.244992$Lw3.15...@news2.aus1.giganews.com...

[Just Allan]

Sorry, sorry! Forgot all about our discussion here...

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 07:40:18 GMT, "David Bruce Murray"
<dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote:

Snip (about the raw meat).

>The purpose for him paying for the four others to
>shave their heads and also purifying himself in the same manner is clearly
>stated by James who asked him to do it. The Jewish converts needed to see
>him do something that showed respect for the law, and so he agreed.

Hm... sadly it didn't seem to have the effect they'd hoped for - they
were beating Paul to death when the soldiers arrived.

>But Paul didn't circumcise Titus who was similar to
>Timothy in that he was a Gentile. In fact, he insisted that Titus NOT be
>circumcised. See Gal. 2:3-10.
>
>The difference in the two situations is that there were Jews getting in
>Paul's face about circumsising Titus, forcing the issue by saying he HAD to
>follow that law in order to be saved. The case with Timothy was entirely
>different and Paul acted accordingly, thinking of his own experience and
>Timothy's effectiveness as a minister in the future. Timothy could preach to
>Gentiles who didn't care if he was circumsised or not, but he could also
>preach to Jews who did think that was important.

Or pehaps the earlier circumcision was an error in judgement. I see
you're thinking - but it just doesn't sit right with me that someone
would go through adult circumcision to please some stubborn Jews. And
if they did, I feel that would be an error (for later Jews could point
back to that event and claim everyone should be circumcised).

>A third example is where Paul says he's actually GLAD he didn't baptize but
>very few people! Was Paul against baptism? No, yet he didn't baptize some of
>the people he converted. Why would he employ such a double standard if not
>for the fact of relating most effectively to whoever is present?

Every time I read that section, it seems to me in verse 10 Paul is
pointing out there should be no divisions amongst them, but some
thought they were more important depending on who they had been
baptised by. So, what I see here is that Paul is saying he is glad he
baptised none of them, since Paul was held in such high regard. And
that if he had baptised them (instead of the others he mentions), can
you imagine the dissimilation that would have resulted.

> Yet some
>would argue that water baptism is not only a good thing to do in every case
>of conversion, it's also required for salvation. There's some scripture that
>implies this to a certain point, but I don't think Paul would have left off
>something that was required for salvation.

Maybe that's exactly Paul's point - he may have realised at some stage
this would be the result of his baptising people. There certainly
seem to me to be far more verses stating we must be baptised.

1. He that believeth & baptised shall be saved.

2. You must repent and be baptised in Jesus name for remission of sin
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3. Noah... ...wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...

4. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

5. Jesus was baptised to "fulfil all righteousness".

6. John's disciples (who were already baptised once unto repentance)
were later baptised a second time - brought up to date as it were -
this is perhaps one of the two most powerful instances I've seen for
why baptism is necessary. If it wasn't, why bother once let alone
twice. The other instance is:

7. When Philip was caught up to preach to the Ethiopian eunuch.
Philips began at the same scripture and "preached Jesus". Later while
travelling, the eunuch says to Philip, "see, here is water, what doth
hinder me to be baptised". Baptism wasn't mentioned earlier, so it
seems to me that when they "preached Jesus", people were then
baptised. (#4 stated that baptism washes away sins.)

All I'm saying here is, that no - Paul does not openly say you need to
be baptised. However, he does recognise that all those he is writing
to in 1 Cor 1 were baptised by someone, even if it wasn't himself.

>A fourth example is in Acts 17 where he snatches on the idea of the "Unknown
>God" that the heathens had made an idol to and said, "Let me tell you the
>facts about this unknown God." This is another case of Paul sizing up the
>situation and relating the Gospel in a way the local people could
>understand.

Yep, definitely! No argument there, because this is not an example of
Paul changing his behaviour to suit others. He's just using a
familiar situation to introduce the Gospel.

>A fifth example is in Acts 19:11-12. God works miracles by Paul, allowing
>the sick to be healed by cloth that Paul had simply touched in those verses.
>In other cases, God does not grant him this power, or at the very least,
>Paul chooses not to exercise it. Phil 2:27 and 2 Tim 4:20.

Urm... lost me on this one. Sorry.

>>Also, Paul in Acts 16 circumcises Timotheus - putting him through this
>>suffering only to please the Jews. This is later denounced in Acts 15
>>as unnecessary.
>
>Later? Acts 15 happens before Acts 16.

Haha! That it does - I was half asleep at this point...

> Paul circumsised Timothy with the
>full knowledge that it was not necessary for salvation. He did it for the
>purpose that was clearly stated in Acts 16.

Yes, because Timothy's father was a Greek. Yet it still just doesn't
sit right with me. Circumcising an adult (VERY painful) because some
Jews may get arrogant about it? Oh, I don't doubt this is what
happened here (what a heart Timothy must have had!) but I must point
out - Timothy wasn't doing what many today claim he was. Namely,
living like a bikie/junky/rockstar etc. to win the same. Timothy
obviously did this in humility - whereas many today do their version
in arrogance. (I want to speak/think/dress like a
biker/rockstar/homosexual to win the same.)

>> Later in Galatians 2, Paul himself denounces this
>>same practice and goes on to challenge Peter for similar behaviour
>
>I fail to find anywhere in Galatians 2 where he says he was wrong to
>circumsise Timothy. He confronts Peter for being a hypocrite, but that's not
>the same thing.

I see my mistake here - by "denouncing this same practice", I meant
"changing your behaviour just to please others". While I can see an
excellent spirit in Timothy for what he did, I certainly don't think
it should apply today (circumcising to please the Jews). And again,
no-one could seriously compare behaviour, for instance such as smoking
pot to "win" a pot smoker to Christ, to Timothy's self sacrifice. I
think most would agree the two are opposites.

>Relating to a crowd is entirely different from being a "manpleaser." Being a
>"manpleaser" means compromising God's standards in order to get along with
>other humans. I'm certainly not advocating that. Relating to a crowd is like
>going to a native tribe and having the decency to learn their language
>first.

Agreed.

>I'm not sure when Galatians was written, but what Peter was doing as
>described in Gal 2 is completely different from what Paul did in Acts 21.
>It's one thing to get along, preventing a division in the church, as Paul
>was doing. It's something else entirely to act one way in front of one
>group, and then act like that way is wrong when others are present.

Certainly - see er... my previous large paragraph.

>>>More than that, the undeniable benefit is that
>>>modern English words are easier to understand.
>>
>>Many, many people think othewise. When I wasn't a Christian, I mocked
>>them - because their Bible had "thee's & thou's" in it. But when I
>>became a Christian, I realised how important this language is to
>>understanding the depth of the Bible. Prayeth - "to pray and to
>>continue to pray".
>
>Getting the depth of the meaning and readability are two completely
>different things. I stand by my original statement. I was clearly making a
>readability comparison.

Oh yes, I see. Unfortunately it kind of sets the standard doesn't it.
What I mean is, if I homeschool my son using Golden Books for text
books, he'd still be a baby at 21. At the least, his understanding
would be limited and at the worst, very distorted.

>>My point is, most modern Bible versions make Scripture unrecognisable
>>in many instances. They alter the meaning in many places. In one
>>example I can remember, Paul at Mars hill tells the idol-worshipping
>>people they are "too superstitious". In the modern versions, they
>>become "very religious" - almost as if he's giving them a hearty slap
>>on the back for their idolatry, and going on to introduce the only
>>idol presently unknown to them - Almighty God. Just add Him to the
>>list.
>
>It's cool that we are thinking of the same examples. I'm replying to this as
>I read it, but I gave you my take on the idol at Mars Hill above. As to the
>difference in interpretation, I agree that "religious" is a poor substitute
>for "superstitious." While there are many of the non-legalistic persuation
>who would immediately understand that calling someone "religious" is not a
>compliment, most non-Christians probably would think that it WAS a
>compliment.

Heh - so think how a hindu or moslem would read it for the first time.

>>I hear the new versions are also translated from 1% (or thereabouts)
>>of the ancient texts - which cannot even agree with each other in many
>>places. Whereas on the other hand, the 99% (or thereabouts) of
>>manuscripts the KJV is translated from, are in agreement.
>
>Well, I'm no Biblical history expert, but I find those percentages very
>difficult to believe. Copies of manuscripts have been discovered that
>weren't even around when the KJV was translated and they are older than the
>ones that were used for the KJV. At that point, it becomes a matter of
>figuring out

That's why I put (thereabouts) in brackets. I'm not spot on with the
%'s but I don't think I'm far off either.

>That's a new one on me. I've looked many modern translations, including some
>that were pretty bad, IMO, but I've never run across that one.

Oh now where is that again - I think it was a verse in Isa & another
in Rev....

-----
Isa 14:12 (KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

Rev 2:16 (KJV)
I Jesus... ...I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright
and morning star.

-----

Isa 14:12 (NIV)
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn.

Rev 2:16 (NIV)
I Jesus... I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright
Morning Star.
-----

So the modern texts don't identify lucifer as the one who fell from
heaven. Furthermore they make it sound like the Jesus in Rev 2:16
(the morning star), fell from heaven as the "morning star" in Isaiah.

>My point about this entirely too long message is that you have to meet
>people where they are and relate to them on that level. You don't hand a
>second grade child "The Sound and The Fury" and demand a book report on it.
>They will hit a brick wall. When it comes to evangelism and discipleship, as
>Paul did on at so many times in his ministry, you use whatever you possibly
>can to get the Truth across in a way that the audience can understand.

Well, not everything... : )

>We're far from Southern Gospel at this point, so if you want to take this to
>email, that will be fine with me. I'd planned to stop at 3 AM, and now it's
>3:40. :o)

Oops, too late!

[David Bruce Murray]

Scott Bouldin wrote in message ...

>First of all, the idea of a having to be a professionally licensed
counselor
>to be able to answer a child's question of 'what does the Bible say
>about....' or 'how does God want us to respond to...' is simply ludicrous.
>Nothing short of it. Many of those professionally licensed counselors are
>the ones telling parents to not discipline children, and to not 'force God
>and the Bible down their throats', which usually leads to a youth getting
>into a situation that would merit coming to his/her youth minister. I will
>never turn away a youth with a question about God's direction for our lives
>because I'm not professionally licensed to answer that question. Our small
>rural churches like mine cannot afford $40,000-$50,000 a year to hire
>someone with tons of degrees and licenses. So, we seek God's direction.

Man, what's your beef with me? I was just trying to point out some things
that I hoped would help you in this decision.

I never said anything was wrong with teaching kids about God! That's your
job after all, and you don't have to be professionally licensed to instruct
other people in spiritual matters. Otherwise, 99% of Sunday School teachers
would be at risk. Yeah, it's ludicrous. I never implied it was the case.

However, if you think that's the only type of topic kids are going to bring
to you in a private "counseling" session, you're wrong, pure and simple. Two
examples that you could get into trouble for counseling privately: "My dad
hits my mother. What should I do to make him stop?" or "I hate my parents. I
mean, I really wish they were dead."

Of course, I'm not advocating standing by and doing nothing when situations
like that exist, I'm just saying those aren't the type of topics that you
can discuss IN PRIVATE with a minor.

>And the entire point of my earlier post was quite clear. I was not saying
>that I was going to buck our ridiculous culture and get myself into any
>situations. I understand that bad things have happened to good people, and
>even more rumors occur than actual events.

My response to your post was also quite clear.

I specifically referred to you as a church employee being "alone with
minors." I never said you couldn't answer their questions about God, nor did
I imply in the slightest that you have to be a professional counselor to
answer such questions. In fact, questions about God was never mentioned at
all. You yourself said the original intent of the meetings you were
considering was so "youth members could come by my office and discuss *any*

problems or questions that they needed to talk about."

>I specifically said that I am

>limiting and restricting my ministry because of the idea of such situations
>like you suggested that enter into 'Christians' heads, and in my opinion,
>that's very, very sad, because those who are ministered to in a limited
>setting are the ones who suffer our simple-mindedness.

If you want to nit pick every thing that was said "specifically," that's
fine.

I know that you're already taking some precautions. I can read, after all. I
was just trying to point out that gossip is not the only thing to worry
about with such a scenario. I know that you already know this. You seem like
a fairly intelligent guy.

I have a very difficult time understanding what it was I said that set you
off like this, Scott, unless you just totally mis-read the intent behind my
post.

[Rick Ryan]

Scott,

Good for you! You're a wise man to be careful about scheduling private meetings
with females. It's just too easy for rumours to get started and they can easily
mean the end of your job without anything ever happening.

Good luck in the future.

In article <tqf67a2...@corp.supernews.com>, Scott Bouldin says...

[Rick Ryan]

Assuming what you say is true, I'm very happy to hear that Candy and Kent are
working together. The way they were working, long term, would've been
detrimental to their marriage AND their children. Good for them.

In article <20010918180047...@mb-cp.aol.com>, KJCSmith1 says...

[Scott Bouldin]

I guess that it was a combination of several posts from several different
people on this newsgroup concerning the Bishops, the Kingsmen, and Bill and
Candy that had me in a foul mood. And I did take your post wrong, as I can
see now. I really did take it as seeming that someone in my position should
not councel kids about their lives as young Christians without having a
sheep-skin on the wall. Like I said, I was in a very foul mood, especially
after some of the reactions of late within the Bishops' thread. My use of
'councel' was also mis-used on my part, because I do not expect to have a
open door to 'couch' type psychology sessions, but rather to help the kids
look for God during tough times. The situations similiar to what you posted
have given people in the ministry a lot of road blocks, and we definitely
have to be careful, as I will be. I value my wife way too much to let
something like that come in to play. I just get fed up with people making
these kind of situations worse, though, by gossip and wild finger pointing,
as has occured withing several threads as of late. And again, that's what
had me ticked, and it came out in my last post. I hope I didn't cause
offense.

Scott

"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote in message

news:mm2q7.324934$VV1.24...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

[David Bruce Murray]

Scott Bouldin wrote in message ...

>I guess that it was a combination of several posts from several different
>people on this newsgroup concerning the Bishops, the Kingsmen, and Bill and
>Candy that had me in a foul mood. And I did take your post wrong, as I can
>see now

Thanks, Scott. I really appreciate you saying that.

[KJCSmith1]

>Assuming what you say is true,

Well since Candy herself told me...I would say it is true.

[TRUPA129]

I cannot believe this STUPID conversation is STILL going on!!!! Geesh!!!
Give it up already!!!! I'm so sorry I ever asked!!!!

"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message

> >Assuming what you say is true,
>
> Well since Candy herself told me...I would say it is true.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Clarence Grigsby]

"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote in message news:<wxWp7.322032$VV1.24...@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...

Folks, David Murray is actually a very striking individual. He sort of
looks like John Hagee, only younger and without the good looking
daughters. LOL! I also met Paul Slopak and David Stuart. They don't
look like anybody, although Stuart THINKS he looks like Ernie Haase. I
know this is off topic, but if we're picking on these guys, we're
leaving Candy Christmas alone. :-)

[Clarence Grigsby]

KJC, is Candy going to do anything about this slander or just ignore it?
I think either a lawsuit or a punch in the mouth (or both!) would do the
guy spreading these rumors justice.

kjcs...@aol.com (KJCSmith1) wrote:
Well since Candy herself told me...I would say it is true.

http://community.webtv.net/ClarenceGrigsby/CLARENCEGRIGSBYS

http://community.webtv.net/ClarenceGrigsby/THEGRIGSBYGALLERY

[Scott Bouldin]

Amen!

[KJCSmith1]

>KJC, is Candy going to do anything about this slander or just ignore it?

She said mostly likely ignore it.....She said that the guy wasn't worth her (or
our) time. Kent on the other hand would like to punch him in the mouth.

[KJCSmith1]

>I cannot believe this STUPID conversation is STILL going on!!!! Geesh!!!
>Give it up already!!!! I'm so sorry I ever asked!!!!

And I cannot believe that you actually had the never to as something so stupid
and try to ruin someone's rep.

[TRUPA129]

I never tried to ruin ANYONE'S reputation..... If you look back at the
original post EONS ago, somebody else made the comment that something
happened between gaither and christmas but did not specify what. I had no
idea what on earth they were talkinga bout. I didn't know if it was a fight
or what. I asked what it was all about and this whole mess started.

"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20010921152231...@mb-me.aol.com...

> And I cannot believe that you actually had the never to as something so
stupid
> and try to ruin someone's rep.

[David Stuart]

Yea, Well i look as much like Ernie Haase as Clarence Grigsby looks like
Kirk Talley! LOL.

David

[kir...@monroecentral.org]

Wow....stumbled across this forum while searching for information about Candy Christmas. As a Christian and an "outsider" to this forum, I am absolutely appalled at the banter and negative comments posted. No wonder the world enjoys looking for hypocritical Christians to publicly crusify....forum commentary like this posted for the world to see make finding ammunition too easy. Where's the LOVE my brother's?

[hash...@hotmail.com]

I've read about as much of this thread as I can take....Christians who don't believe in watching soap operas don't need to watch soap operas...just create your own. Going from one comment to another, feed the fire, you know whaaaaat?....I heard this or that......puke! grown people like you.

I bet Bill doesn't even watch the rumor mills. Soap operas are the same every day, same time, same place, same channel, same web site. You always know whats going to happen or perceive to have happened. Sometimes the people change but its always a soap opera. Round and round we go....

[bret...@gmail.com]

Candy Christmas in concert at new life Baptist Church Sunday April 24 2016?

[weather...@gmail.com]

Whether or not this rumor is true, there's something else that comes to my sttention (and this is a relatively small thing or perhaps I am being silly. LOL!):

Candy Hemphill Christmas is GORGEOUS and could have any man she wants. If she did have an affair, of all the people to have an affair with, why in the world have an affair with Bill Gaither? I'm not saying he's ugly but why not have an affair with someone better-looking than him?????? It's like finding out Karen Peck was having an affair with Shrek. LOL!

Oh, well. I respect everyone. I just hope I made someone chuckle. Love one another today! :)

Peace, love and burritos! :P





On Sunday, September 9, 2001 at 10:57:21 AM UTC-5, TRUPA129 wrote:
> Something was said just a while back about something between Candy Hemphill
> Christmas and Bill Gaither going on and said it went un-noticed. I guess I
> have missed something. What is this referring to?

[estueckl...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 9, 2001 at 11:57:21 AM UTC-4, TRUPA129 wrote:
> Something was said just a while back about something between Candy Hemphill
> Christmas and Bill Gaither going on and said it went un-noticed. I guess I
> have missed something. What is this referring to?
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

wow. reading this thread reminds me of all the reasons i got redeemed from "christianity." you people are nut-jobs. get gnosis-- it is the ONLY path.

[coreys_m...@yahoo.com]

I totally agree that this was totally unacceptable. I know someone who used to be with the Gaithers and she said that Candy came and got in the hot tub with Bill and Gloria found them. I've always thought Candy was fake because she brings too much attention to herself on stage and I went to her booth to meet her and she was so rude to me. Is that Christianity?

[jkli...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 9, 2001 at 10:57:21 AM UTC-5, TRUPA129 wrote:
> Something was said just a while back about something between Candy Hemphill
> Christmas and Bill Gaither going on and said it went un-noticed. I guess I
> have missed something. What is this referring to?
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

I personally hate to hear about this .... Right or wrong ?? To me it just was unwise choice that could spread wrong thoughts... The image I get is IF it is 20 & I say" If" I wonder was Candy;s husband in there or Bills wife? Were there Bikini's ? 2 piece? .. I guess 20 people in 15ft is closer than in the ocean . I guess the Men were shirtless .. I guess some women showed lots of Legs and painted toes ... AND NO One is turned on? No one is about to stumble or be bothered? I guess Nice looking Men maybe flexing a little muscle or two on a hairy chest I guess No woman is moved?? Lovely Ladies Painted lips, and makeup? ..maybe Hair done up in a nice way. I sit back and the Image can run on and on til I am very uncomfortable. I would not want my wife in there and I feel My Wife would not want me in there and we have a strong Marriage of 36years We trust each other in the Lord .Please don't post to me I am not posting to judge anyone And I don't want to argue or fuss but I hate this image that has appeared needlessly . With all the Mess going on in the Church We don't need the slightest problem going on. Yeah Bad Choice.

[zlaid...@gmail.com]

I can't get over all of the judging that's going on here..I used to be a Christian singer, but was not accepted by the baptist church that I grew up in because of my sexuality. I know that God loves me, and I still find joy and comfort in gospel music. My grandparents watched gather tape after gather tape when I was little, and this music is instilled in me. Part of the beauty of the group is that Bill will always bring back old members, despite how they are judged by society for their "wrongdoings". We are all equal in God's eyes, and all deserve to sing praise to him.

[shirle...@gmail.com]

Amen ... perfectly put

Perhaps Christians should be seeking Jesus and His Righteousness!

[sunsetm...@hotmail.ca]

First I heard about this (but I'm not STUPID enough to believe it)

[MB Martin]

Scott Bouldin, You did specifically imply. Quote: "Scott, unless you are a professional licensed counselor, you should not be
holding private meetings with individual minors at all."