What Happens if you are Not KJB only?

[robycop3]

Originally posted by PreachKJB:
**Just because you don't like the way it is phrased does not mean it is wrong.**

A lie, is a lie, is a lie, is a lie...

Art thou truly brain dead, or just deceived?
Just because of the way it is phrased, it's a LIE, the one example calls Jesus a LIAR, because of the way it is PHRASED!

Wake up people, try a little discernment, read with a bit of comprehension rather than attitude.

You will be held accountable for reading and AGREEING that Jesus is a liar, don't you THINK?

Or do you really think, as your resident 'DOCTOR' does that all is well in Multi Modern Version land?

In His service, Craig

Consider this, Craig:

Acts 5:30, KJV-The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39, KJV And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

KJVOs have written whole books attempting to justify this phrasing, but it remains in the KJV as a glaring example. It CANNOT be explained away.

This is but one example we could point out.

As Christians, we could give more consideration to KJVO if it were based upon truth, but it's based upon man-made theories that have no fact to support them.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, Will, no one here claims that the NKJV is merely a re-write of the KJV.

Moreover, you've used circular reasoning from the gitgo, assuming that the KJV readings are always right and any other is wrong, something we've repeatedly proven to be incorrect. Just more proof of the great KJVO double standard.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Wouldn't it be better to try to teach these nice people, our brothers and sisters in Christ, the truth rather than just heaping scorn and ridicule on them?

I tried, but when all I got in return was invective and sarcasm, I chose to withdraw from the strife.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Rather than posting the whole thing here, you can see what I had several months ago at this site.

Could you post them one at a time and allow us to look into them in small bites? Thank you.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
Is it time to put this mean-spirited thread out of its misery?

It seems to me we are finally actually talking about the text and not personalities. Why kill it when, finally, some progress is being made?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />show me the Biblical justification for the complete rejection of all other English Versions of God's Holy Word.

It's in the same place that states to put scholarship and men's opinions over what God says;3rd Hellzapopin I believe... </font>[/QUOTE]So, are you saying that there is no Biblical justification for the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
I tried, but when all I got in return was invective and sarcasm, I chose to withdraw from the strife.

That's funny: the same thing happened to me.....

 

[timothy 1769]

robycop said:

Consider this, Craig:

Acts 5:30, KJV-The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39, KJV And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

Robycop, what's the problem, exactly?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Will,

Regarding the misidentification of a Hebrew word...

By the way, nice page - very extensive and well researched (although I disagree with much of it)!

I read the thread on Lucifer.

Heylel ben shahar. Heylel is an unknown word. Strong and many others suggest it comes from Halal which means "he shines brightly". It very well may be - but it a noun and not a verbal form of halal as it has 2 tsere vowels, one written as an unchangeably long vowel. It may alternatively be a form of the verb yalal (he howls). Ben sahar is "son of the (early) dawn".

Also consider the Ugaritic sources. Shahru means morning and was also the name of a demigod son of El and a human woman. He was considered "god of the dawn". The word ellitu means "bright shining".

The idea of a "morning star" is of one of great power and favor - thus the term also applied to Jesus. This is a good tranlation in terms of sense - "bright one , son of the dawn". That's the morning star!

You simply gave a "Strong number" and dismissed it at that.

But this is the same old stuff! If you want to believe that the KJV is the ONLY translation that's fine - but you CANNOT prove it since the facts are not there. You have to put a square peg in a round hole to make it fit!

Is it any wonder that educated men like Dr Bob cannot accept that!

I believe that God preserved His word. It's amazing that looking at the Qumran texts we really have a well-transmitted bible. Some words different but no doctrinal problems. In Psalm 12 God's words (imrah) are pure. Imrah means not per se a word, but a speech or a revelation. God has preserved His revelation although men may have gotten a few words different here and there!

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Problem is the nasb has Jesus saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then He does, while the correct KJB reading has Jesus saying He is NOT YET going to the feast, and then He goes later. In the one case Christ lied, and in the other He did not.

I don't see a problem here. Jesus told His disciples that he wasn't going to the feast, and then later changed His mind and went to the feast secretly. It's not a lie when you change your mind about something. Was God lying when He changed His mind about destroying the Israelites (Ex. 32:9-14) or Nineveh (Jon. 3:10)?

 

[HankD]

It seems to me we are finally actually talking about the text and not personalities. Why kill it when, finally, some progress is being made?

OK, I'm easy to convince (in this respect).

HankD

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Rather than posting the whole thing here, you can see what I had several months ago at this site.

Could you post them one at a time and allow us to look into them in small bites? Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]An excellent suggestion -- take a single point or example and subject it to a sustained examination to see if it holds up under scrutiny.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by PreachKJB:

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, NIV teach? Both these versions read: "when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished", as opposed to the KJB, NKJV, Geneva bibles which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished". The only O.T. reference for this sin offering to make an atonements is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where only the woman offered the sin offering for her purification.

The reading of the NIV and NASB is correct; it has the best MS support, and is in fact the reading of the *majority* of Greek copies. "Their purification" might well refer to Mary and Joseph, not Mary and Jesus. And even if it did refer to Jesus, it doesn't mean Jesus wasn't sinless... only that he submitted himself to the law "to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt. 3:15, KJV), just as He who was sinless submitted to a sinner's baptism at the hands of John the Baptist.

 

[dianetavegia]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
What Happens if you are Not a King James Bible Only believer?
Will Kinney

Nothing.

Diane

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
]The reading of the NIV and NASB is correct; it has the best MS support, and is in fact the reading of the *majority* of Greek copies. "Their purification" might well refer to Mary and Joseph, not Mary and Jesus. And even if it did refer to Jesus, it doesn't mean Jesus wasn't sinless... only that he submitted himself to the law "to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt. 3:15, KJV), just as He who was sinless submitted to a sinner's baptism at the hands of John the Baptist.

"Their" is wrong becaise it contradicts with the Scripture and brings DISHONOR to Jesus.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
]The reading of the NIV and NASB is correct; it has the best MS support, and is in fact the reading of the *majority* of Greek copies. "Their purification" might well refer to Mary and Joseph, not Mary and Jesus. And even if it did refer to Jesus, it doesn't mean Jesus wasn't sinless... only that he submitted himself to the law "to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt. 3:15, KJV), just as He who was sinless submitted to a sinner's baptism at the hands of John the Baptist.

"Their" is wrong becaise it contradicts with the Scripture and brings DISHONOR to Jesus. </font>[/QUOTE]How exactly does it "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I am interested in God only.

It is your oral only, not action.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 schools: the Alexandrian school and the Antiochian school. Which school did you attend?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither of those two. This is one of the most repeated false theories in the whole matter of Scripture. There are not two schools at all. In fact, there are no schools in the way it is used here. There are different text types, each with pros and cons, becuase that is the way God designed it to be. Get used to it.

The result -- I see and you did not see. Study the Acts!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today textual critics said the KJV has errors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they are in fact correct, as we have demonstrated on numerous occasions.

Incorrect! Well, who are textual crtics that said the KJV has errors?

Most people who have died for the faith have not died for the KJV.

They died for the WORD OF GOD because they were faithful to the Word of God. Therefore they had absolute faith.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
So you see, the modern versions also have many words that are hard to be understood.

Will Kinney

I agree with you, Will!

The report that I read, said the KJV is hard to understand. The fact shows that the KJV is readable and understandable.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:

The report that I read, said the KJV is hard to understand. The fact shows that the KJV is readable and understandable.

Not everywhere. Some portions of the KJV are utterly baffling to modern English speakers. Show this passage to most modern English speakers and you'll get bewildered looks:

"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged" (1 Cor. 6:11-13 KJV)

Now show the same passage in a modern version like the NIV and people will easily understand it:

"We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also." (1 Cor. 6:11-13, NIV)

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
How exactly does it "bring dishonour" to Jesus?

The Law in Leviticus Chapter 12 required purification ONLY for the mother -- NOT the child, NOT the father.