Chapter and Verse

My church does not require use of a single translation. Some have NIV, some KJV, some NKJV, some NASB, etc. We've never experienced any such problem you cite.

 

My church does not require use of a single translation. Some have NIV, some KJV, some NKJV, some NASB, etc. We've never experienced any such problem you cite. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you follow along when the pastor reads from the Bible? If you do, how can you be on the same page if you use different versions? Or maybe your church allows the pastor to just talk, no Bible, just talk.

 

He uses the NIV, and I use the NIV, so this is not a problem for me. But the texts of all the readings, as well as the subject of the sermons, are printed in the morning bulletin. Additionally, the pastor will occaisionally say after repeating a verse, "in the KJV it says" or "in the Greek/Hebrew", etc.

 

Such blasphemy!

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

No, my KJV tells me that Hebrew is not word for word the same as Greek.

Dr. Bob asked for a verse that showed the AV is the only English Version. I merely asked for the converse. Neither is doable since ENGLISH DIDN'T EXIST when the Bible was given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, there will be no verses that say AV is official English version or AV is not the official English version.

I really should have heeded 2 Timothy 2:23 and Titus 3:9.

I guess Hebrew and Greek didn't evolve over the years. Did God have the apostles revise the old Hebrew so it would be easier to read to the Jews in the 1st century A.D.? After all, there had been 400 years of silence and I'm sure some words would have changed meanings during that time if it is true for the English language during its last 400 years of usage.

Thanks for the correction, Johnv. Perhaps I should clarify my statement to be: "it is interesting that there has been only one English Bible translated under a king that is still in use today."
Both the Great Bible (1539) and the Bishop's Bible (1568) were authorized but had their shortcomings and thus failed the test of time.

I assume you mean not to look up in a dictionary but OK to look up KJV scripture where the word or phrase is used.

"to let" - Exodus 4:23, to allow or permit
"suffering" - Acts 27:7, to allow or permit; Romans 8:18, trials or tribulations
"narrow" - Numbers 22:26, small
"comprehend" - Job 37:5, understand or realize
"advertise" - Numbers 24:14, proclaim; Ruth 4:4, advise
"to do to wit" - phrase not found in KJV

Where have I said that the KJV is the "only word of God"? If I have not said those words, then I expect an apology from you.

... and was most likely spoken in Aramaic. Which only really proves that God's promises will not fail regardless of which language His word is translated into.

 

No, my KJV tells me that Hebrew is not word for word the same as Greek.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now you need to actually read Luke 4:18 and compare it to Isaiah 61:1 in the KJV. It isn't just a matter of different wording. Jesus read different substance than what appears in the KJV reading of Isaiah 61:1.

BTW, if your response above is an adequate answer in your mind then you should have no problem with MV's. Our argument all along has been that different Bible versions say the same things with different wording.

 

Just chapter and verse that says the NIV is THE ONLY Version.

Just chapter and verse that says the NASB is THE ONLY Version.

Just chapter and verse that says the NKJV is THE ONLY Version.

Just chapter and verse that says the GENEVA is THE ONLY Version.

Just chapter and verse that says the ORIGINALS are THE ONLY Version.</font>[/QUOTE]Is anyone claiming these things??? I have seen no one make such a claim. Your side is claiming that only one version is the true word of God and we are simply asking you to tell us where God said that. It is simply enough. It is strange that you keep stonewalling. Of course, we all know that you stonewall because God never said that.

So you are admitting that your doctrine is not a biblically taught doctrine? You are admitting that God never said it? You are admitting that your teaching is only the teaching of men??

Too bad Jesus and the apostles didn't have this common sense.

This confusion argument is totally ridiculous. Start carrying another version of God's word and you will very quickly see why it is not confusing. You will find it to be enlightening if you listen and read carefully. Of course, most will never do that because they would rather complain and be intellectually lazy.

 

This is great!!! Someone from your side who will show the fallacy of your position.

Clearly, based on your own definition here, 2 Thess 2:7 is an error and misleads people in the study of God's word.

 

Double Think/Double Speak Alert!

But we are told by the KJVO leadership that the 1611 English supercedes the Greek and Hebrew.

So here is a strange and amazing thing that the "re-inspired" (in English) Word of God has the NT quoting the OT differently (slightly but none-the-less differently).

In reality this is indeed a translational problem.
Had the KJV actually been a "re-inspiration" then this disharmony would have been cleared up by the one who "inspires/re-inspires".

BTW, in the Sunday School class which I have been priviledged to teach I use the KJV primarily but have often used extracts from several of the MV's to do exactly what the KJV translators claimed in their Prologue to the 1611KJV - give the "sense" of the Scriptures to those who don't know Greek and Hebrew.

Our Pastor uses the nKJV preaching book by book, line by line, occassionaly going to the Greek, occassionally citing another MV to again give the "sense" of the original writer. Everyone is free to use whatever version they choose, there is NO confusion due to this practice in the local church where we attend.

HankD

 

Me:

Can you give me a chapter or verse that says I'm not God?
No? Well, I guess I must be, then.

Michael Hobbs replied:

Such blasphemy!

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

I'm flattered. Thanks for noticing!

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images

Yeah, I was really on form when I wrote that, wasn't I? Great stuff!

But neither verse you quoted said I wasn't God.

So, by your argument, I must be.

 

So do you agree that if you or he used something different, it would be a problem?

 

You will find it in Hesitations 4:17.

 

Boy, you're getting good at putting words in my mouth.
Please, Pastor Larry, share your wisdom and insight and explain this. I defined "to let" as it is used in Exodus 4:23.

And this applies to me how? Don't tell me you are assuming that someone can't prefer the KJV over all MV and not follow "KJVO leadership".

Sure they did, read a little closer. There's only one God, a great God, a mighty God. You are none of these, thus you are not God.

I pray that you will confess your blasphemy and ask forgiveness from the one true God.

 

Boy, you're getting good at putting words in my mouth.
Please, Pastor Larry, share your wisdom and insight and explain this. I defined "to let" as it is used in Exodus 4:23.</font>[/QUOTE]To let is used other places and in 2 Thess 2:7, it clearly gives the wrong understanding. To understand 2 Thess 2;& with your definition is to attribute error to God's word. It shows that teh KJV needs to be updated because it is no longer accurate.

 

Dear Michael,

I wrote:

You replied:

You are correct Michael, I made an assumption and for that I am sorry.

So, do you believe that the 1611KJV is the re-inspired Word of God and supercedes the Greek and Hebrew of the original language manuscripts?

P.S. I won’t retract my apology no matter how you answer

HankD

 

But neither verse you quoted said I wasn't God.

Michael Hobbs said:

Sure they did, read a little closer. There's only one God, a great God, a mighty God. You are none of these, thus you are not God.

Where in that verse does it say that I am not that one God, great God, mighty God?

I pray that you will confess your blasphemy

No blasphemy, just an obvious case of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. This little exercise forces you to admit one of two things:

</font>

1. It is useless for you to challenge someone to provide chapter and verse that something is not true, e.g. that the KJV is not exclusively the Word of God in English, because by that very same argument you prove (a term I use very loosely in your case) virtually every stupid thing you can imagine.</font>
2. If you are unwilling to give up your useless argument, then you must acknowleddge that by your own argument, I am God since you cannot prove otherwise.</font>

Shouldn't be a difficult choice for you. Abandon your goofy argument and admit Dr. Bob is right and the KJVers are wrong, or hold onto it and be forced to acknowledge my absolute lordship over every aspect of your life.

 

The Bible is silent on the issue of translational authority. Hence, no one can biblically assert that one translationis authoritative over another.

Amen, Johnv!

The growth of new Christian is being stunted and discouraged because she is effectively being forced to use only a Bible that she can't understand. She didn't grow up using the KJV like I did. She doesn't have advanced education or a sophisticated vocabulary. She is by all appearances a simple, sincere person who wants to grow who speaks today's English.

This is the reason we have more than one translation.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I assume you mean not to look up in a dictionary but OK to look up KJV scripture where the word or phrase is used.
No, I meant don't look them up, period. Your assertion was that "anyone can understand" KJ English. Had you said that anyone could understand it with a little research, I'd agree with you.

"to let" - Exodus 4:23, to allow or permit
In the accusative, it means "to allow", but in nominative, it means "to hinder", as in Romans 1:13. In today's usage, it no longer means "to hinder".

"suffering" - Acts 27:7, to allow or permit
Correct.

"narrow" - Numbers 22:26, small
Nope. If it's a noun, it would mean "a tight place", but as an adjective, it means "difficult". For example, When Jesus says "narrow is the way, he was saying "the way is difficult", not "the way is tight".

"comprehend" - Job 37:5, understand or realize
In some places, it means "to ascertain", which is not the same as "to understand". In the Hebrew, it implies conectualizing the the point where you have control over it. That meaning is clearer in the Greek. For example, in John's Gospel, when it says "the darkness comprehended it not", it means "to overtake for the purpose of possession", which is not remotely the same as "understand" (the contemporary meaning of the word).

"advertise" - Numbers 24:14, proclaim; Ruth 4:4, advise
Half right. Advertize meant "to advise" or "to counsel". It did not mean "to proclaim" or "make known", as it does today.

"to do to wit" - phrase not found in KJV
It's found it 2 Cor. 8:1: "We do you to wit". It means "We make known to you." Wit, wist, wot, and even wotteth appear many times in the KJV, yet its meaning (know, knew) escapes most people.

Now, if you want to use the KJV for reference, what does the KJV mean when it referrs to "brass"? What does the KJV means when it referrs to the crop "corn"? What does the KJV mean when it says "suburbs"?

 

No. Other people use different versions from the pulipt reading, and it's never been a problems to them, either.

 

Michael Hobbs speaking of the Hebrew
language in the time of Jesus: "After all,
there had been 400 years of siolence ... "

Actually a history of those 400 years:
400BC to 1AD is contained in my KJV1611
ILn dtghe books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.
It is not contaned in my KJV1769 nor KJV1873.