Why AKJV only?

Joseph was Jesus' father, but God was Jesus' Father. Does your Bible distort that too?

 

Whew! I finally read all the way to the end of this thread. I got in on this conversation a little late.

Don't forget that Luke 2:41 in the KJV also seems to deny the virgin birth.

Luke 2:41
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

 

One word, adoption.

 

Why dont you quit trying to "shake down" the newbies with this tired old cliche? I'll answer your petty little question. You see,Polyversions have Luke,the narrarator,claiming that Joseph was Jesus' father in Luke 2:33.However,in Luke 2:49 we find that Jesus quickly corrected His mother on who His Father is.Anybody can be a "parent" to a child so your argument is null and void.

Well,Alexandria,a Polyversionist has tried to shake your faith in the KJB;pay no attention to their rhetoric.

He does not know what he is talking about either.

Answer me this,when,where,and by WHOM did you get talked out of believing the KJB??

 

No one is trying to shake down the newbies. What we are doing is exposing false teaching. If you wish not to be exposed, then change your belief. Your argument here shows the fallacy of your own position. If anyone can be a "parent" to a child, then Joseph can be Jesus' father. No problem here ... except for those who don't like to see people have God's word.

Do you not think that Mary believed in teh virgin birth?? I would think that if anyone knew the truth, she did. Yet she, knowing full well the doctrine of the virgin birth, still called Joseph Jesus' father. Therefore, it is clear that calling Joseph Jesus' father does not deny the virgin birth.

No one has tried to shake her faith. We have tried to strengthen her fiath by showing the obvious truth. Unfortunately, to this point, she has chosen to believe lies over the word of God.

To the contrary, I have supported everything I have said with undeniable fact. I have not even dealt in things that are disputable. I have shown incontrovertible fact for everything. I do know what I am talking about. The only reason you reject it is because you prefer the opinions of men over the word of God.

I haven't seen anyone here who doesn't believe the KJV. I certainly do.

 

Forget about what versions say "father" and what versions say "Joseph". What do the original texts say?

 

Well,were waiting..

 

Well if he listens to your tripe,wont that be an opinion of a man? Carefull,your ignorance is showing

 

Does the following verse from the KJV deny the virgin birth?

Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

 

No.

 

Why not?

Does this verse deny the virgin birth?

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Why not?

What makes your argument about these verses valid, and ours about Luke 2:43 invalid, if we use the same arguments?

 

Why not?

Does this verse deny the virgin birth?

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Why not?

What makes your argument about these verses valid, and ours about Luke 2:43 invalid, if we use the same arguments? </font>[/QUOTE]Is your dad your father or your Father? The Bible distinguishes between the two.

 

How about you just answer my questions?

To answer yours my dad is my father. Lowercase. Just like in Luke 2:43 in the "modern versions". Again, what makes your argument about these verses valid, and ours about Luke 2:43 invalid, if we use the same arguments?

BTW, the capitalization difference between "father" and "Father" does not exist in the Greek. Is the Greek wrong? Did the KJV correct this problem? Did the Holy Spirit make a boo-boo?

Also, if capitalization makes a difference in meaning, why does the modern KJVs differ in capitalization from the 1611 in thousands of places? (virgin/Virgin, apostle/Apostle, Holy Spirit/holy Spirit, etc.)

 

No, he will not be following the opinions of man. Everything I have said can be verified in Scripture and is therefore the truth of God. You are the one who is ignoring and rejecting the truth of God. You cannot blame that on me. As for my ignorance, if this is ignorant, then we all need to be this ignorant. People who confuse the truth with ignorance merely show unfamiliarity with the truth.

 

It depends on whether it is the first word in the sentence, or whether it is a direct address.

If you knew anything about Greek, you would see that this is not true. There is no distinction of capital letters in the language that God chose for the Bible to be originally written in. When you see capital letters in Scripture, they are the interpretation and conventions of modern language. Luke, writing in Greek, knew no distinction between "Father" and "father." It all looks teh same in Greek. Get out your Greek NT and look it up if you don't believe me.

 

Originally posted by Alexandra Spears:
&gt;&gt;I still stand by the AKJV being the inerrant Word of God.

First of all, unless you can tell me what it says in Baruch 5:1, you are not using the Authorised Version. You are using one of the modern revisions.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with your love for the KJV. In fact, I would argue that I love it more than all of the KJV-Onlyists [Hey: I'm using the REAL AV].

My problem lies in the fact that you espouse KJV-Onlyism as Doctrine, yet cannot provide Scriptural support for it. You provided links to your friend Tracy's website, which offered nothing more than the same tired worn-out arguments from Chick Publications. KJV-Onlyism is unscriptural.

 

I decided to look it up for myself. You're absolutely right. There's no distinction in the Greek. The capitalization is an interpretation of the English. The KJV translators used "father" when referring to a male parent, but used "Father" to refer to God, as in, Heavenly Father. This referrs to the rules of English grammer and composition. It does not refer to the Greek. In Greek, father and Father are spelled, and appear, the exact wame way.

 

Would this be the same doctrine listed in the following versions????

NASB Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

NIV Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

NRSV Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost."

RSV Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."

ESV Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Once again, your charge of omitted or perverted doctrine is shown to be false. When will you learn that you have no evidence to support this false teaching that you are propouding?? Trust me, you are not saying anything new. We have been through it so many times and can answer with ease any challenge you put forth. The doctrine that you claim is missing in teh MVs is clearly in the MVs, showing that you are not telling the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]I did not ask you to look at Luke 19:10, but I ask you, what doctrine is Matthew 18:11? You did not answer my question. Why did most modern versions remove this passage?

14 manuscripts removed this verse! However the evidence is that 47 manuscripts have this passage!

Please answer my question: what doctrine is on Matt. 18:11?

 

n i second that.

u see, those who truly love God r not those who "elevate" Him into a fifteen-armed warrior or a twenty-headed god.

they love Him best n truly who take Him at His Word n refuse to add thereto, as KJBOism does.

 

Correct! NIV is incorrect because Luke wrote Joseph, not "child's father."

Be careful to look at what Luke wrote and what Mary said.