If you are looking into running your own web server, you probably have heard about web hosting control panels before.
Web hosting control panels are software that runs on a web server that allow you and others to manage web domains, e-mails accounts, FTP accounts, manage databases, etc.
Here are four questions to ask yourself, if you are wondering if you need a web-based control panel:
1) Do you have intermediate knowledge of Windows and how it works? (and for Linux users) Are you good and experienced using Linux and the command line on Linux?
2) Do you have intermediate knowledge of how to setup and run a web-server?
3) Are you good at solving problems that occur (trust me, there will be times that big problems come about, and it is not fun)?
4) Do you have many websites to manage?
If you answered “no” to questions #1, #2, or #3 and/or you answered “yes” to question #4, then you will be more comfortable using a web hosting control panel. Also, if you are planning to sell web-hosting or have a lot of websites to host, then using a web-hosting panel may be easier than doing everything manually. Otherwise just forgo a web hosting control panel and do it yourself.
Please keep in mind that using a web hosting control panel causes your web server to be vulnerable, since if someone hacks the web-based control panel and gets into your accounts, they can do some serious damage. You are pretty much making it easier for a targeted attack, since one little web panel script with a vulnerability in it can potentially get your server compromised (not joking).
Here is an example of a web hosting control panel giving you a security problem (I know the linked article is old, but it still proves my point): https://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/07/plesk-0day-for-sale-as-thousands-of-sites-hacked/
Web-hosing panels are there to make your job easier, usually at the expense of being flexible with your server. When using a web-hosting control panel, you are “locked-in” with whatever the web hosing panel allows you to do. It’s basically convenience or flexibility with your server.
It is not advised to “do your own thing” (doing something that the web-hosting panel does not support; going around the control panel to do something), since this can cause problems down the road. It’s best to just stick with whatever the web hosing control panel provides you, so you better pick the right one the first time.
Posted in Internet and Servers, Software
A lot of well-meaning people think that the KJV (King James Version) translation is inspired by Jesus. This is not only ridiculous, but this idea is actually not Biblically sound. Please note that this blog post is *not* attacking KJV Only people. I am just pointing out problems with this idea that make it unBibilical.
Now I am *not* saying that the KJV is not the Word of God, but I am saying that people cannot claim that God inspired a specific Bible translation over all the other ones, because there is no Biblical support for this notion.
Let’s go though some problems with this idea.
- The KJV is just a translation. It is not the original, inspired manuscripts.
- How can someone say that the KJV is inspired by God? Did Jesus tell them or someone else that He inspired the KJV translation? All I know is from the Bible itself. It says that God inspired His Word (the original manuscripts, NOT the KJV translation) (2 Timothy 3:16).
- What happens if you translate the KJV into another language? Since not every language is exactly the same, would the KJV translations (in other languages other than English) not be inspired since translating will be slightly different from the English version (even though trying to keep the original meaning)? Would everyone on Earth have to read in English to read the Bible?
- The KJV-Only advocates supposedly believe that the Holy Spirit directed the translators in translating the KJV. How do they know this to be true?
- I read that in 13 different places, in the original 1611 KJV translation, the KJV translators gave alternative manuscript readings. Why give alternate readings if the Holy Spirit was guiding you? The translators would have known exactly what do write down, and not have to resort to alternate meanings if they were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
- The language of the KJV is Old English. How is someone supposed to understand several verses in the KJV if it was translated for people over 300 years ago? Would not several words, phrases, etc., in the KJV mean something different now than they did back when Old English was used? If we are supposed to be reading the “inspired” KJV, would we not have to learn Old English to gain a good understanding of what was being said?
- The King James Only movement is technically adding to the Bible’s revelation by saying that the KJV is inspired, since the Bible already tells us that the original manuscripts are inspired. Quite frankly they might as well add a verse in the Bible that says God inspired the KJV translation, since that is basically what they are verbally telling people anyway!
- King James Only-ism can be considered a form of idol worship, since these people seem to (in my experience) revere the KJV translation as much (if not more) than Jesus Christ Himself.
- Another thing that is interesting about this whole KJV Only idea is that there are several people who say that the NASB (New American Standard Bible) translation is the closest (or at least very close) to the original manuscripts. If this is in fact true, then the KJV Only movement is flawed from the beginning, since the NASB is supposed to be closer to the manuscripts than even the KJV!
- The KJV adds the word “Easter” to refer to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The ironic thing is that the word Easter is *not* in the Biblical manuscripts at all! It was just a word the KJV translators added. Not to mention that the word “Easter” is from pagan origins. From Google’s dictionary: “Old English ēastre ; of Germanic origin and related to German Ostern and east. According to Bede the word is derived from Ēastre, the name of a goddess associated with spring.” The early church did not observe “Easter” in any way. Technically the KJV translators replaced a part of the Bible with a word that is used for a demonic false “goddess”. How can someone say that the KJV is “inspired and perfect”?
Why believe the unBibilical KJV-Only idea? The idea is to make translations that people can understand better. Yes, I know there are bad translations out there. However, not all of the Bible translations are bad.
Quick Note: I do make use of the King James Version translation myself, but I mainly prefer using the NASB version. I do agree that the NIV and other “easy-to-read” Bible versions are not the most accurate translations around.
Posted in Christian