Revelation 17 :8 why "Yet is"

What other possibility is there, SFiC? Have you not thought through your claims?

THIS is what happens when you avoid questions. You never think through what you say. You never see why its wrong.

 

So why do ya try to add the KJVO myth to it.

And how did kaiper esti get into the TR unless Erasmus goofed? </font>[/QUOTE]No goof, just positive action on the Holy Spirit! and those word have no diffrece in their meenings just a Better way of getting the truth out! </font>[/QUOTE]And howdya KNOW it was the Holy Spirit who added those words? Howdya know He hadn't said 'kai paresti' earlier for that verse? Do ya really believe He'd change His mind?

If he can thus change His mind, you have no grounds to holler about any version that doesn't read as the KJV does. They're just more changes made by the Holy Spirit to the translators of those versions. This statement has equal weight with yours.

 

Just because I said that as far as I know no one has the originals, does not mean I deny God preserving His Word. He said He would do it, and I am sure He has. He said His Word was 'forever settled in the Heavens.'

Ya know, He was able to preserve the life without us seeing it, I believe He has preserved the Ark of the Covenant and its contents within.

Do we have that Ark? No, but it certainly is preserved. We know this to be true, because it contains the things God wanted preserved therein.

There have been some translators that readily admit they do not have the originals, yet they translate what they do have.

So, why is it not possible for the original to have 'and yet is?'

Suppose, just suppose that God did speak to Erasmus, or even another person and told them it was supposed to be included?

 

Suppose, just suppose, you God did. That is secondary revelation. That means, the canon wasnt closed after the book of Revelation.

Who is to say when it did close, then? If this passage was added later, then you cannot preclude any other person from being able to do the same thing.

You are still using your assumption as proof of your conclusion. Its an illogical lie. I dont believe for a second that you are stupid, so there is only one other alternative: you are claiming something you either KNOW isnt true, or dont care to check its authenticity.

 

That means that we have no right to doubt what Joseph Smith said God told him. If Erasmus added anything to the Scripture, he is in violation of the very Word he added to. This opens up a big can of worms and allows that the Canon was not closed and any translator is at liberty to add and then claim God told him to.

Bro Tony

 

It is both arrogant and unChristlike to say if I do not admit I am wrong I am calling God a liar.

Just because one does not agree with what God, through the reading of His Word and living for Him has showed me, does not mean I am wrong or that I am calling God a liar.

 

It does show that there is a reason why you wont answer questions, and it has nothing to do with you "avoiding foolish questions". It has to do with you "avoiding YOUR foolishness" being made known. As soon as someone shows it, you whine and cry foul, and complain like you are being insulted. Why act like such a child? If you are incompetent to explain your own position when it clearly goes against known facts and scripture, why should we not rebuke your false claims?

One thing is true, either YOU are lying, or God is. If you reject the first, then you need not answer the latter. It is affirmative.

 

Satan is the accuser of the brethren and satan is also the one who questioned God's Word all along. 'Yea, and hath God said?'

 

Then why on earth would you say that God failed to preserve his word?

You may claim you did not say this, but you did. Read carefully.

YOU claim that this reading in the KJV is God's inspired word. It is a fact that this reading is not found in ONE SINGLE ANCIENT WITNESS, which you seemed to object to. You refused to produce any evidence attesting to that, which is basically your way of chickening out of being held accountable for false claims. You then suggested that we supposed God inspired someone OTHER than JOHN to ADD to what was written in Revelation, which the book itself strictly forbade.

Now you want to change your story, and claim that
GOD showed you these things? You have made it clear that we are not talking about the same God! The God of the bible would NEVER lead you to believe something DIRECTLY AGAINST his inspire scripture!

You are arguing in a circle. You either do not have the intelligence to see this fact (which I do not believe is true), or you willfully do not want to see this fact (which is more likely).

Either way, in the end, it is you who have rejected CLEAR scripture, since John wrote specifically not to add to these words, and God said he would preserve his "word" for every generation. You openly reject both verses when you claim that "kaiper estin" is an inspired reading, since if that were the case, God would have failed to preserve his word, and he would have rejected his own word by inspiring someone to add to it when he said it was not to be done.

Either way, you have no evidence whatsoever for a single claim you have made.

Now, will you cry like a baby that you are being mistreated, or will you actually address the ISSUE, and stop coping out by taking everything personal in a clever excuse to avoid answering questions?

 

YOU read carefully--I have not posted in this thread and have watched you and TCassidy attack my husband. Ron has answered ALL your questions and you refuse to listen because his answers do not agree with YOUR beliefs--so you call him a liar--SAD.

Do YOU have the manuscripts or the originals? How do YOU know that what YOU say is true?

You need to show more respect to people who:
1) are brothers and sisters in Christ
2) have been alive longer than you and are old enough to be your parents.
3) probably have more knowledge than you do--even though you claim to know it all, and anything you say is correct.

You have a [personal attack deleted] DD.

In the end, when you stand before God, YOU alone will have to answer for ALL that you have said.

Nobody is crying like a baby--we weep for you--praying that God will open your eyes to His truth.

[ May 21, 2006, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

DesiderioDomini,

It's not that they don't want to admit that they are wrong. It's just that the KJVO belief is woven so tightly into their faith that they can't admit they are wrong without risking their faith (in their mind).

As an ex-strong-KJVO myself (now KJVP), I was raised on the teaching that the KJV was the only valid Bible, and everyone who reads other versions are relying on an errant non-final authority translation.

Romans 10:17 - So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

In a KJVOs mind, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the KJV (only). I believed this, for over 10 years.

I came to a point in my life where I refused to accept any doctrine that was not in the Bible (which was the KJV). I re-examined all that I believed in. I came across these boards and saw a few KJVO debates. Just like the poster said (I think it was robycop3), I could not find scriptural support to back one-version-onlyism (even in the KJV).

No amount of proof would have convinced me that KJVO was a lie. But in the end, it all came down to a simple question, "is it scriptural?" When the answer was "no", I dropped it from my faith. When I dropped it from my faith, I was able to accept the proof that it was a myth.

So KJVOs won't reject KJVO unless
1) They demand that all their faith/beliefs must be backed by scripture.
2) They realize KJVO it is not supported by scripture.
3) They drop KJVO from their faith.
4) They consider facts that prove KJVO wrong.

Until they reach #3, they will not accept any facts- no matter how obvious and definate- because it is part of their faith.

This is probably a poor example, but it would be like someone coming to you with all sorts of facts and evidence that says Jesus Christ never died on a cross. We would reject ALL the evidence, no matter what, because Jesus Christ dieing on the cross is part of our faith and we accept that as 100% truth. We would have to drop Him from our faith before we would even consider the evidence.

Long post, but I just wanted to clarify the problem here. It's not an issue of stupidity or foolishness. It's an issue of people putting faith into a scriptureless doctrine.

 

In order to defend 17:8, there should be substantial manuscripts to support it. I am not sure that there is no manuscripts supporting TR in this verse, there must be a few, I don't know yet.
In that case, it could be interpretted as " It was, and is not, but actually exists"

Regardless of this problem, I have no doubt that KJV is more accurate than any other versions, and is God's favored translations. Pointing out Some scribal errors and corrections are childish accusation and ridiculous excuse to escape from the Words of God, which will turn out shameful at the Judgment Seat. We must be honest in the presence of God.

 

Kubel,

Haven't I seen you on another forum board that is KJVO? I've noticed that you don't attack the KJVO on that other forum, so why do it here?

There is no problem with using the KJV--only with the people who like to come against those who do and defend the KJV.

KJVO is a misrepresentation of those who defend the KJV. Check out this website before you "clump" all who defend the KJV as radicals:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kjvonly.htm

 

Tell ya what DD, Tony, and Kubel, if my conforming to your ideology means that I will be accusing my fellow brothers in Christ and lying about them as has been done by many in this thread toward me, I can tell you that I will not conform to those values.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.