Does Satan really read the bible?

[MinnesotaSlim]

We've all heard it said that satan reads the bible and knows whats coming. Is this really true?

Isn't the help of the Holy Spirit needed to understand and discern biblical teachings, specially in the areas of Revelation?

That said, does the Holy Spirit work with satan to understand all the metaphorical meanings in revelation? - I think not.

If satan truly understood the endtimes and his fate, wouldn't he stall as long as possible instead of speeding up the process? Maybe he isn't as smart about this as people think, and that when God throws him to earth, satan blindly and quickly brings about his own fate.

[Wileyzmuse]

I'm sure he knows the Bible well, so that he can counterfeit as many of God's miracles and plans as possible.

Also, satan truly believes that he is capable of victory over God, so he may tempt God to try and end things. Plus, it probably gets hard for satan since he has no idea when everything will take place. It's probably like chinese water torture for him to sit around not knowing when his number is up. I believe he knows scripture, but has no real understanding of it.

YSIC,
Patricia

[Timothy]

You are correct that reading and truly understanding it are two different things. The application of scripture, sometimes referred to as "illumination," is the work of the Holy Spirit.

But Satan most definitely can read the word of God, and knows enough to misuse and twist some of the meaning, and cast himself as an "angel of light." Satan's tactics are founds in Genesis 3.

QUESTION THE WORD OF GOD: Satan's first method is to question the word of God from a positive approach. He wants to raise doubt about it, thereby questioning it. Genesis 3:1 “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

SUBTRACT FROM THE WORD OF GOD: Another method is subtraction from the word of God. The example below shows the importance of every individual word. Genesis 3:2 “And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.” Note that the word freely is left out. See Genesis 2:16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat”

ADD TO THE WORD OF GOD: Satan also will add to the word of God, such as adding law to grace. Genesis 3:3 “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” Note that “touch it” is added. See Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

WATER DOWN THE WORD OF GOD: Satan will water down the word of God. Genesis 3:3 “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” Note that it is “lest ye die” where the God said “surely.” Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

DENY THE WORD OF GOD: Satan denies the word of God. Genesis 3:4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.” He denies Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”


Another example is in Matthew 4, where Satan starts quoting scripture to the Lord Jesus Christ!

Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Note how Satan quotes Pslams 91:11-12 to the Lord Jesus Christ, but added “at any time” and subtracted “keep thee in thy ways." The Lord quotes scripture right back at him - "it is written again."

[KrispyKritter]

Not only does he know the Bible... I happen to believe that down thru the centuries he has perverted it thru certain people to the point where now you have to be very discerning about which versions of the Bible you read. The worst offender is the NIV.

[blitzkreig]

Satan would not only know the Bible but the whole lives of each of the Prophets. All of the Apostles. He met with Jesus and tempted Him personally.

Satan is not omniscient nor omnipresent... but he does certainly have lots of spies. I would think his access to information is pretty good.

[2bossy]

I think Satan knows what God says the future will be like, but he believes he can change it.

[Xtreme]

Satan's intelligence is unparalleled save that of God. We require the Holy Spirit to lead us to faith and understanding, Satan does not. Satan most assuredly knows the Bible inside and out... the question is:

WHICH VERSION DOES HE USE? :pound

JK

Don't discount his intellectual ability. The fact is though he is quite insane. Brilliant, but insane to the point that with all of his knowledge - witnessing first hand the creation of the universe and the awesome power of God - yet he STILL believes he can defeat Him?

Just as Nebucanezzer <sp?> was driven insane because of his pride and self reliance, Satan is just as mad. How else do you explain his belief that he can change the will of God?


And KrispyKritter: Can you give specific errors in the NIV? I have not found anything that differs from the KJV outside of the lanuage (modern English vs. Old English).

There are some versions out there - the one the JW's use... and a couple of others - that completely distort the gospel and the diety of Chirst... but the NIV does no such thing.

ybic,

mike
\o/

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Xtreme
And KrispyKritter: Can you give specific errors in the NIV? I have not found anything that differs from the KJV outside of the lanuage (modern English vs. Old English).

There are some versions out there - the one the JW's use... and a couple of others - that completely distort the gospel and the diety of Chirst... but the NIV does no such thing.

ybic,

mike
\o/

The issue isnt the KJV... its what manuscripts were used in the translation. The KJV used the Textus Receptus, consisting of over 5,000 manuscripts that all agree nearly 99% of the time. The NIV and other modern versions used 2 manuscripts that dont even agree w/each other 20% of the time, and completely disagree with the Textus Receptus.

Did you miss these verses that were completely removed from the NIV? These verses have some very strong doctrinal inplications when removed. Look 'em up in the NIV... you wont find them.

Matthew 12:47 . . . This verse is removed in the footnotes.


Matthew 17:21 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"Howbeit this kind goeth not
out but by prayer and
fasting."


Matthew 18:11 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"For the Son of man is come to
save that which was lost."


Matthew 21:44 . . . This verse is removed in the footnotes.


Matthew 23:14 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
devour widows' houses, and for
a pretence make long prayer:
therefore ye shall receive the
greater damnation."


Mark 7:16 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"If any man have ears to hear,
let him hear."


Mark 9:44 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched."


Mark 9:46 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"Where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched."


Mark 11:26 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"But if ye do not forgive,
neither will your Father which
is in heaven forgive your
trespasses."


Mark 15:28 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"And the scripture was
fulfilled, which saith, And he
was numbered with the
transgressors."


Mark 16:9-20 . . . All twelve verses are removed in the
footnotes.


Luke 17:36 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"Two men shall be in the
field; the one shall be taken,
an the other left."


Luke 22:44 . . . This verse is removed in the footnotes.


Luke 22:43 . . . This verse is removed in the footnotes.


Luke 23:17 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"(For of necessity he must
release one unto them at the
feast.)"


John 5:4 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"For an angel went down at a
certain season into the pool,
and troubled the water:
whosoever then first after the
troubling of the water stepped
in was made whole of
whatsoever disease he had."


John 7:53-8:11 . . These verses are removed in the
footnotes.


Acts 8:37 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he
answered and said, I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God."


Acts 15:34 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"Notwithstanding it pleased
Silas to abide there still."


Acts 24:7 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"But the chief captain Lysias
came upon us, and with great
violence took him away out of
our hands,"


Acts 28:29 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"And when he had said these
words, the Jews departed, and
had great reasoning among
themselves."


Romans 16:24 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you all. Amen."


I John 5:7 . . . This verse is completely removed:

"For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one."

[Xtreme]

ok gimmie a few minutes to search these verses...

i have a KJV... no NIV's... but i'll do a bible gateway search and get back to you.

- mike

[KrispyKritter]

By the way, Mike... You mentioned the JW's version of the Bible. Did you know that the NWT (JW's) uses the same underlying greek text that the NIV does? It's commonly referred to as the "Alexandrian Text, popularized by Wescott & Hort. It's also used for the NASB, NLT, RSV, ASV, and 99% of the other Modern Versions.

[Xtreme]

Well KrispyKritter... my verdict is in...

I had no idea those verses were removed from the NIV!!!!!!!!!

And since I use the KJV anyhow I guess I didn't miss 'em either hehe

But in any case, I see your point.

ybic,

Mike

[Xtreme]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
By the way, Mike... You mentioned the JW's version of the Bible. Did you know that the NWT (JW's) uses the same underlying greek text that the NIV does? It's commonly referred to as the "Alexandrian Text, popularized by Wescott & Hort. It's also used for the NASB, NLT, RSV, ASV, and 99% of the other Modern Versions.

well i know the version that the JW's use flat out strips Chirst of his diety much more so than any ommissions the NIV makes.

i would say all in all the NIV is "ok"... but discernment is required.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Xtreme
i would say all in all the NIV is "ok"... but discernment is required.

This is the only point I would disagree w/you on. It is a dangerous thing to add or subtract from God's Word.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Xtreme
I had no idea those verses were removed from the NIV!!!!!!!!! The verses werent 'removed' in the NIV. The NIV was simply based on different source texts.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Hootmon
The verses werent 'removed' in the NIV. The NIV was simply based on different source texts.

Exactly! Someone who understands! :thumb

[Xtreme]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Exactly! Someone who understands! :thumb

<sigh>
KK, i understand where you're coming from. i can comprehend the difference of the source documents. now pardon me while i wipe the drool from my chin...
[/sarcasm]

if the verses aren't there then they have been removed. i am guessing the NIV was written AFTER the KJV? so obviously they had a "go-by".

and i agree that adding/subtracting from scripture is bad news.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Xtreme
<sigh>
KK, i understand where you're coming from. i can comprehend the difference of the source documents. now pardon me while i wipe the drool from my chin...
[/sarcasm]

Whoa... I wasn't taking a stab at you. My comments were more about all the people who believe the modern versions have just taken out the thee's and thou's. I apologize if that offended you.

The verses werent taken out later after the KJV. The KJV is translated from what is called the Received Text. The RT is a collection of over 5,000 complete manuscripts of the NT. They all agree with each 99% of the time. The modern versions are translated from the Alexandrian Text, of which there are 2 manuscripts, which disagree with each other 20% of the time. And they disagree with the other 5,000 documents of the RT even more than that... as you can see by comparing the KJV to the modern versions.

Even the origin of the Alexandrian Text is questionable. They mysteriously appeared in the 1500's after John Wycliff translated the Bible into English. The Catholic Church, who vowed to murder anyone who translated the Bible into English (they killed William Tyndale by burning him at the stake), myseriously came up with the Alexandrian Text right after Wycliffs Bible was published. They used this text (which they have never allowed anyone to study the originals) to try to discredit Wycliff.

And now... our modern versions are from the Alexandrian Text.

I smell a rat.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Xtreme
if the verses aren't there then they have been removed. i am guessing the NIV was written AFTER the KJV? Or the other alternative is that the text used for the KJV had added them the extra verses.

Im not qualified to judge which is which, but dont assume one is better than the other simply due to its length.

[BereanSalmon]

The Bible says that the devil believes...and trembles!

He knows how it ends, but he knows that he gets seven years to party first. He is probably spending his time planning what he will do during that time, and putting things in place so that he will be ready to start at a moment's notice...

[Xtreme]

i agree he believes and trembles...

i suppose that there is no hope for his salvation - in other words, he has been sentenced to the lake of fire, so what does he have to lose? similar to a trib person taking his mark.

i don't think any of the fallen angels can repent and be forgiven by God now, can they?

[Don]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
The issue isnt the KJV... its what manuscripts were used in the translation. The KJV used the Textus Receptus, consisting of over 5,000 manuscripts that all agree nearly 99% of the time. The NIV and other modern versions used 2 manuscripts that dont even agree w/each other 20% of the time, and completely disagree with the Textus Receptus.
What? I'm pretty sure the NIV was based on far, far more manuscripts than the KJV was. That was one of it's main points: the discovery of many, many more manuscripts since the 1600s when the KJV was written.

[Don]

The Textus Receptus, upon which the KJV was based, was made up of only half a dozen manuscripts from the 10th to 15th centuries, and there were about half a dozen verses missing from the end of the Book of Revelation in those manuscripts. More modern translations are now based on hundreds of manuscripts, many of them hundreds of years older than the TR manuscripts.

[forawhile]

I've met pagans that are very knowledgeable of the scriptures and used them to try to change my views on God. I wasn't fully aware of this at the time, therefore it did confuse me a bit. I thank God for his mercy and patience when it comes to discernment!

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Don
The Textus Receptus, upon which the KJV was based, was made up of only half a dozen manuscripts from the 10th to 15th centuries, and there were about half a dozen verses missing from the end of the Book of Revelation in those manuscripts. More modern translations are now based on hundreds of manuscripts, many of them hundreds of years older than the TR manuscripts.

This is entirely false. I would highly recommend that people do a study on where these manuscripts originated. The Alexandrian Text which the moder versions are based on consists of 2 manuscripts which do not even agree with each other 20% of the time. The origin of these texts is from Alexandria, which was a hotbed of heretical teaching. And the only place where these manuscripts are located is the Vatican, and their origination is shrouded in mystery. The Vatican "claims" they are older, but there is no proof of this.

The manuscripts that make up the Textus Receptus number OVER 5,000. And these manuscripts disagree with each only .035% of the time. And the history and origination of the TR is extremely well documented.

Are you going to rely on the 99.9% of the manuscripts that make up the TR, or the .1% of the texts that support the modern versions... including the JW's New World Translation?

All of this info is readily and easily available. Dont take my word for it... study it yourself.

[Don]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
All of this info is readily and easily available. Dont take my word for it... study it yourself. I have done an extensive study of this in the past, and my findings were a lot different than yours appear to be.

[glorymj]

Originally posted by Don
I have done an extensive study of this in the past, and my findings were a lot different than yours appear to be. Yes, me too.

[KrispyKritter]

I guess all the info I study was wrong then.. silly me. :D:

[Don]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
I guess all the info I study was wrong then.. silly me. :D: Are you sarcastically implying the opposite? glorymj and I are simply voicing that our own studies in this area have lead to a significantly different conclusion than yours.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Don
Are you sarcastically implying the opposite? glorymj and I are simply voicing that our own studies in this area have lead to a significantly different conclusion than yours.

No no... Simply stated, if thats your conclusions, than I wont argue w/you about it. It's all kool. Obviously I dont understand how you can come to that conclusion, unless everything I have read and studied is wrong... but we're still brothers, and we all have to stand before God alone.

My motivation in this is to encourage people to study this whole issue because it is an important one. If you study it and conclude differently than me... well, I dont lose sleep over that. At least you studied it instead of just accepting something at face value. Face value can be very deceiving.

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Not only does he know the Bible... I happen to believe that down thru the centuries he has perverted it thru certain people to the point where now you have to be very discerning about which versions of the Bible you read. The worst offender is the NIV.

Oh, please!!!

Krispy, if Satan really had a desire to pervert Scripture I don't believe there would be your beloved KJV, the NASB, the NKJV, or any of the other fine translations. If Satan really would have been allowed by God, in His permissive will, to pervert Scripture then I have to say that the Textus Receptus would have never made it down through the ages...and the Alexandrian Text would be waterlogged in the Mediterranean.

Regardless of translation...what is your theology? That's certainly what matters, too! Don't you think?

How do you see Israel in God's plan of the ages? How do you see the atonement? How do you see missionary work? We're blessed with multiple translations. Quite true that the NIV will only give one a general understanding of a particular Scripture, and that for in-depth study the ASV, NKJV, NASB or KJV are necessary. But Satan has failed pretty miserably (of course) if his aim was to pervert Scripture. He has won if we only read one translation exclusively, and believe only what that one translation teaches.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[Don]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
No no... Simply stated, if thats your conclusions, than I wont argue w/you about it. It's all kool. Obviously I dont understand how you can come to that conclusion, unless everything I have read and studied is wrong... I think there is a lot of disinformation and disingenuous presentation of information regarding this issue. I think I'm going to have to look into this again.

[glorymj]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
but we're still brothers, and we all have to stand before God alone. I'm a sister :B: but otherwise I agree. Everyone should study for themselves, and be convinced in his/her own heart, because each of us must stand before God alone. :D:

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Oh, please!!!

Krispy, if Satan really had a desire to pervert Scripture I don't believe there would be your beloved KJV, the NASB, the NKJV, or any of the other fine translations. If Satan really would have been allowed by God, in His permissive will, to pervert Scripture then I have to say that the Textus Receptus would have never made it down through the ages...and the Alexandrian Text would be waterlogged in the Mediterranean.

Matthew... The KJV is not my beloved. I am not contending for the KJV, and have stated so over and over and over and over and over again... Sorry you missed it.

I love ya brother... but I question (because of what you just posted) if you've actually studied the history behind this whole issue.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
How do you see Israel in God's plan of the ages? How do you see the atonement? How do you see missionary work? We're blessed with multiple translations. Quite true that the NIV will only give one a general understanding of a particular Scripture, and that for in-depth study the ASV, NKJV, NASB or KJV are necessary. But Satan has failed pretty miserably (of course) if his aim was to pervert Scripture. He has won if we only read one translation exclusively, and believe only what that one translation teaches.

So then God failed to perserve His Word for us? If you last sentence is true.. How do we know what God's Word really says? What can we trust? According to your way of thinking... not only did Satan fail... but so did God.

[BereanSalmon]

i don't think any of the fallen angels can repent and be forgiven by God now, can they?

What I find interesting is that it appears we may deliver the judgment on these angels. We know that they are reserved for judgment:

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

We also know that at some point, we will be involved in the judging of angels. I am not sure what this means, exactly, but it could be that God will allow us to pronounce judgment on all of the demons who have tormented humankind. And it could be that the demons know we will have this power and hate us all the more because of it!

1Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

[Don]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
So then God failed to perserve His Word for us?
His Word or the scriptures?

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Don
His Word or the scriptures?

Not sure what you're asking... the scriptures are His Word.

[Don]

Originally posted by BereanSalmon
We also know that at some point, we will be involved in the judging of angels. I am not sure what this means, exactly, but it could be that God will allow us to pronounce judgment on all of the demons who have tormented humankind.
I've thought this out from what I've read in the Bible, too, and I am so hoping this is true. It would be with unbelievable pleasure that I would pronounce judgment on the angels who've tormented me and tempted me to sin.

[BereanSalmon]

It might be that we can be entrusted with the judging because God knows there is no chance we will be too forgiving! Just hearing a few of their deeds read aloud would probably be enough.

[tractsforchrist]

[Oh no this turned into another KJVO vs. NIV thread. But it is ok it is good sometimes to hijack]

When I came back I too fell into KJVO because of all the mounting evidence against it. My brethren corrected me when they gave a good counter arguement. I must be sincere, I really can't understand the KJV. I really can't. KJVO people keep on insisting it is not that hard once you get into it and once you get a concordance but it is hard! I mean in the NIV, when they said in the OT "she said "I am having my period"" I smacked my head because I never realized that before in the NKJV. I had no idea what they were talking about.

Does this take away from my belief in God? NO Actually it is better to understand NT by looking at different versions to get a meat of what is said because sometimes the wording does not apply to me.

This is also selfish for those who are of different languages, a common arguement I use, who want to read the bible.

I also have heard certainly bad things about the "missing" 5 years of manuscript of the KJV.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by tractsforchrist
[Oh no this turned into another KJVO vs. NIV thread. But it is ok it is good sometimes to hijack]

When I came back I too fell into KJVO because of all the mounting evidence against it. My brethren corrected me when they gave a good counter arguement. I must be sincere, I really can't understand the KJV. I really can't. KJVO people keep on insisting it is not that hard once you get into it and once you get a concordance but it is hard! I mean in the NIV, when they said in the OT "she said "I am having my period"" I smacked my head because I never realized that before in the NKJV. I had no idea what they were talking about.

Does this take away from my belief in God? NO Actually it is better to understand NT by looking at different versions to get a meat of what is said because sometimes the wording does not apply to me.

This is also selfish for those who are of different languages, a common arguement I use, who want to read the bible.

I also have heard certainly bad things about the "missing" 5 years of manuscript of the KJV.

One more time... pleeeze, everyone listen to me!!

I AM NOT KJVO AND I AM NOT DEFENDING THE KJV!

Personally I think it high time the underlying greek text of the KJV should be done in modern English... but so far it has not been done. Not even in the NKJV.

Why doesnt anyone understand this? It's not a version issue... its a manuscript issue. :doh :doh :doh :doh :frusty :frusty :frusty :mad :mad :mad

[tractsforchrist]

I'm sorry :tape

:cry please forgive me for misunderstanding :cry

[I'm sorry I am on my rant. I have a KJVO core person in my bible study who thinks we are being less christian or something if we don't read the KJV or if we don't sing hymns in church [we sing contemporary hymns.. but along the lines of Twyla Paris]

[Don]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Don
His Word or the scriptures?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure what you're asking... the scriptures are His Word. Whenever I see the phrase "Word of God" in the scriptures, it appears to mean something else.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by tractsforchrist
I'm sorry :tape

:cry please forgive me for misunderstanding :cry

[I'm sorry I am on my rant. I have a KJVO core person in my bible study who thinks we are being less christian or something if we don't read the KJV or if we don't sing hymns in church [we sing contemporary hymns.. but along the lines of Twyla Paris]

I apologize too... I lost my kool there. I despise being called KJVO. I'm not. Never claimed to be... dont even fit the definition. But when a debate on this starts people go... "Oh, you're KJVO" ... like "Oh, you retarded...". It bugs me, and it's a way to dismiss the issue w/out even knowing what the issue is.

By the way... it's spelled "T-w-i-l-a" :D: :wave

Forgive me?

[glorymj]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Personally I think it high time the underlying greek text of the KJV should be done in modern English... but so far it has not been done. Not even in the NKJV. I wonder why this is?

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by glorymj
I wonder why this is?

If you study the history, since Wescott & Hort (they were not even Bible believing Christians... at best they were New Age) came out w/ their Bible based on the Alexandrian Text (RSV), along w/their theories on textual critisism instead of literal translation... everyone just accepted their ideas. The KJVO folks would never dream of leaving the old English. Therefore no one has...

I am not capable of doing it, or I would. We'd call it the KKV Bible. I would start my own KKV-O group!

Somehow I dont see staunch old time Baptists going along with the idea of a Bible called the Krispy Kritter Version.

[tractsforchrist]

See I would go for a KKV that I actually can understand. I see it is better for me to understand a little bit than check with other versions than read something I totally cannot.

I would be a KKVO!!! I would also like the manuscripts to be better.

[glorymj]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
I am not capable of doing it, or I would. We'd call it the KKV Bible. I would start my own KKV-O group!
:pound :pound