Legit questions for all

I am Impressed with your articulation of the english language! I mean that! you are a very intelligent Humanbeeing! and have a tremendus range with Words and you sound sincere: But with all do respect the whole truth nothing but the truth is what matters not wha tYou or I beleive in! It is the scriptures which are Above us All! So we either have the "WORD of GOD" or we have something that contains The word of God! I want the WORD of God! Thanx and please accept my sincere apology for bad mouthing you good name! Thanx and God bless!

 

Does the KJV perfectly translate every word from the Hebrew and Greek into English in every case? Do they have errors---not in doctrine. But any translation from a higher language to another language can loose something in the translation of a particular word. So to answer your question, which by the way I have yet to see you or Askjo or SFIC do to the many straight forward question to you, they including the KJV dont have errors and they are the Word of God.

Bro Tony

 

Does the KJV perfectly translate every word from the Hebrew and Greek into English in every case? Do they have errors---not in doctrine. But any translation from a higher language to another language can loose something in the translation of a particular word. So to answer your question, which by the way I have yet to see you or Askjo or SFIC do to the many straight forward question to you, they including the KJV dont have errors and they are the Word of God.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Again answer the Question! If you have the "FAITH" that the Translation is infallible,inerant.and the "Word Of GOD"then "All things are possible to him that beliveth"

 

Again, dont apply your incredibly flawed logic to my posts. Our language has changed much since 1611. Faithful translations are made to make sure that the Scripture is offer in the easily understood language of the day. I dont nor do you speak in 1661 english. How do I know? All I have to do is read your posts to see. Again, you have applied your biased understanding to what I have said. You need to back up and let me say what I mean and deal with that as I've shared. I will be glad at anytime to receive your apology for saying that I said the KJV is less reliable.

Bro Tony

 

Again, you show that in the face of a fact shown, you are more concerned in standing in your man-made KJVOism than honestly dealing with what has been shown you. Your conviction as to whether the word white should be used instead of bright may be genuine, but you can be genuinely wrong. Every mormon Ive ever met has been sincere and had strong convictions about their faith, but they are wrong and wont listen to the truth. You have been shown in the very text used by the KJV translators and yet you refuse to hear. Remember it was you who used this point to attack the NKJV for translating the word bright instead of white. It was shown to you that the primary translation of the word is bright, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it. I believe you have chosen to be willfully ignorant concerning this and you cant talk to one who makes that choice.

Bro Tony

 

William,

I would humbly ask you to read my post in response to your original question. I gave you a clear answer read it.

Bro Tony

 

I will find it just because it wasn't there before 1516 does not prove it wasn't there!and yet2539 is.2076 (Keiper esti) is the best english translation By far! I used Google but that was before I rededicated my life to Christ:And I assure you I wasnt looking up Bible scripture then! Amen! I'm going to learn from all this You have tough me Alot and I have gone too far to turn back now! so lets learn together!

 

tought

 

taught

 

William,

I would humbly ask you to read my post in response to your original question. I gave you a clear answer read it.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry I meant Yes or NO answer! then we can go further in this debate!dont you think? I see where you are trying to lead me here but I have never Claimed to be KJVO But I have claimed to be KJVO in English. Maybe thats the same for you but I beleive that God gave every Language His Words! Jesus did it from a Heavenly language which no man has uttered into Aramaic,Latin,Hebrew. I am sure he can do the sane for you and for me! The KJVO are the words of man but the KJB Is the "Word of God" Amen!

 

sorry! taught! thanx

 

William,

I have sincerely given you a straight forward answer. Your circular reasoning leaves my head spinning. The KJV is the Word of God, so is the NKJV, RSV, NASV, NIV. They all are faithful translation of certain Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Are they in error, not in doctrine or the truth that God is sharing to His people. As I said earlier our language changes in time, we dont speak in 1611 english, you dont as is clearly seen in your posts. I simply dont understand why anyone would not want an understandable translation of the Bible whether in English, Japanese, Korean or whatever. I would not expect a book written in 2006 to sound like a book writen in 1611. We don't talk like they did nor do we write like them. That the same exact English word is not in both translations does not mean that there has been a change in meaning. As a matter of fact the change proves the desire that the meaning not be changed.

Bro Tony

 

I agree but not at all with the statement that we "We don't talk like they did nor do we write like them". Maybe not exactly but God didn't change!So why did His words "CHANGE" in the MV's? Why are they missing? I'm sure God is Complete! Why can't we have a Complete Word Bible? Amen!

 

One more time brother. I am not saying that God change and the MVs dont do that either. They simply bring the original language into an english form that our generation speaks. After all wasnt that the point of the 1611, so the everyday man could read the Scripture? Not one everyday man on this forum speaks in 1611 english, I would also be surprized William if you can actually read a AV 1611 KJB--I say that not to put you down, but I believe you probably read a revision of the 1611 and you could not understand or read the 1611 without the revision in more modern english.

Bro Tony

 

excuse me, the white is in another verse that has been under scrutiny by the same ones who are debating this one.

no error in 17:8 anyway. KJV is true in its reading. 'and yet is.'

 

Wow, where have you been through this entire discussion? Have you looked one thing up? Do you seriously expect me to believe you have a clue as to what is going on?

I have never commented on the various readings of the colors. If you have been reading my posts, you would know that. However, since you still have never responded, it is most likely that you never even looked it up.

The reading in question is "and yet is", in greek "kaiper estin", it is found only in the TR, and never existed on this planet before they appeared as a typo in Erasmus' greek NT.

To date, they have never been found in ANY MANUSCRIPT, ANY CHURCH FATHER, or ANY OTHER ANCIENT WITNESS of any kind.

Now I ask, first: do you acknowledge that it is not found on this planet before 1516?

Then, if so, how can this reading be the authentic word of God, if it is a typo?

Standingfirm, Linda, and William avoided this reading at all costs so far, because they do not want to think about what happens if they see the truth of this reading.

Will you address it now, and take truth over tradition?

 

I will find it just because it wasn't there before 1516 does not prove it wasn't there!and yet2539 is.2076 (Keiper esti) is the best english translation By far! I used Google but that was before I rededicated my life to Christ:And I assure you I wasnt looking up Bible scripture then! Amen! I'm going to learn from all this You have tough me Alot and I have gone too far to turn back now! so lets learn together! </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, William, "and yet is" is the best possible translation of "kaiper estin". I dont know of anyone who knows any greek who disagrees. Do you really think that is what I am talking about?

My problem is whether or not "kaiper estin" should be the words being translated!!!! Do you see this ????

Now, if these words never existed before a typo, how can they be God's word?

You have made one try at this, saying that Erasmus was inspired of God. However, if Erasmus is still penning new scripture, when did the canon close?
Something tells me you arent thinking before you post.