Final Authority before 1611?

[HankD]

Did you know that there was a practicing lesbian and sodomite on the NIV commitee?
This is not a good recomindation to me.

Unfortunately, I do not have the measure of Christian grace that Brother Ed has and I will ask you a similar question:

Did you know that two of the men (one of a them a "bishop") on the KJV translation committee had (along with King James) a Baptist believer burned at the stake for opposing infant-baptism?

Did you know that King James had another Baptists' nose split and ears cut off because he opposed the office of "bishop"?

Does "This is not a good recommendation to me" apply in this case?

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Just because you don't understand the verse, doesn't mean it is in error. The KJB translors knew the Hebrew, Greek and Enlish language very well, and this verse is correct. This is the verse that the churches have had for generations. I believe God's word, and church history above your opinion of what the Greek says it is.

The evidence speaks for itself. The KJV reads "strain at" while the Greek from which the KJV is translated reads "strain out". Now, either the translators blew it, or some printer blew it, and the error has been retaind in subsequent editions and printings.


I figured as much, that one would have to bring (hide behind) a foriegn language to prove the English scriptures in error.

He's not hiding behind ANYTHNG...the TRUTH is, YOU'RE hiding ...from the FACT...the fact that 'diulizo' means "strain OUT, remove by filtering". This is in the Greek that the KJV is translated from. And the KJV is a TRANSLATION...not a whole new set of Scriptures replacing the long-existing ones!

I believe God, not you, nor your opinion - to which has come from your doubt.

Then why don't you believe what He gave some 1900 years ago, the texts which He allows to be translated into today's languages?

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:There were no errors in either one.(Geneva Bible, KJV}

So, things that are different ARE the same?

KJV, Psalm 12:7 "...thou shalt preserve *THEM*..."

Geneva Bible, same verse "...thou shalt preserve *HIM*..."

So these are the same?

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:No, rather you missed the point and the truth:

And the plain, indisputable TRUTH is that what JESUS read aloud in the synagogue as translated into the KJV is DIFFERENT from the verses in the book of Isaiah as translated into the KJV OT.

Jesus was reading to a skeptical crowd which was looking to find fault in him, as the context of Luke 4 shows. The context also shows the crowd had known Jesus and His earthly family since His youth, and that they couldn't believe whom He really was. Given these things, that crowd would've gone ballistic had He not followed the text written in that scroll EXACTLY. Now, I don't know if the KJV translated a LATER edition of Isaiah, or JESUS used a later edition,(which is most likely)but the differences are plain and beyond dispute. If YOU wish to deny what's written in your own KJV, Michelle, go right ahead and continue in your delusion.

Michelle said "I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said."

No, you didn't. Jesus did NOT speak English to His audience. The KJV didn't then exist.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle said "The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses"

False witness. You do not understand the meaning of "deny".

--------------------------------------------------

Michelle:And you are having a difficult time comprending what has been said:


"The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses"

Deny: "to declare untrue".(Merriam-Webster)

Please show us a NIV verse which says, "Jesus is not God" or something similar, except where it's narrating something a Pharisee or Jewish leader said.

 

[robycop3]

roby:No, you are. You are saying God is limited to one version. You are saying God is powerless and unable to preserve his word in more than one version. We do not believe God is this powerless and limited.
--------------------------------------------------


Michelle:I have never said God was limited to one version. God does not preserve errors/corruptions, He exposes/reveals them.

Then please answer this question: What other specific English version(s) do you recommend?

 

[robycop3]

I have been faced with nothing but guesswork, opinion, and propaganda.
--------------------------------------------------

Michelle:This is true, but sadly you bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Save your reverses for your next football game. That stupid KJVOism tactic WON'T WORK here.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:I have answered this many times.

With SPIN.

You require a specific answer

The KJV is a specific version, and you say you're not KJVO. Therefore we wanna know what other specific version you recommend...no rocket science needed, no trickery involved. If you don't wanna answer specifically, your statement that you're not KJVO is dishonest. You've told so many other windies that we now require you to prove anything you say before we'll start to believe it.


that would cause you to come away with a different understanding than that of the truth, because of your lack of understanding of this issue.

There's no lack of understanding of the issue. The KJVO incorrectly says God's word is limited to JUST THE ONE VERSION in English, while that belief has been proven wrong time & again.


So I do not answer specifically, because I do not want to cause an added stumblingblock to your blindness.

Actually, it's because your non-KJVO claim is less-than-honest.


I do this to cause you to think about what has been said. To which none of you are doing, because many are sadly too caught up in fighting against a false man-made label. You are all sadly in bondage to a false label.

Actually, it's the KJVO who's in bondage...to a man-made myth made by a known cult official and continued by later less-than-honest authors.

 

[robycop3]

KJVBT:Did you know that there was a practicing lesbian and sodomite on the NIV commitee?
This is not a good recomindation to me.

Your inexperience is showing here. The person in question, Virginia Mollenkott, was a part-time consultant on language style, and had absolutely nothing to do with any of the actual translating. In fact, she was little-used by the committee, and dropped from the staff when her sexual orientation became known.

There was at least one drunk on the AV committee, as well as several members of the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission, which were the Anglican forms of the Inquisition. You may verify all of the above from any good encyclopedia.

It's really a moot issue, just another desperate KJVO attempt to fine something...ANYTHING...which might support their myth. God can use anyone to do anything He chooses. The less-than pious actions of both the AV and NIV committees did nothing to diminish their work.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:Hint: Jesus, by his authority and power, and being the Word of God, and the Son of God, combined the scriptures of the place in the book of Isaiah concerning him as HE spoke to the people. This is why their eyes were "fastened upon him"

You simply don't know what you're talking about. In your KJVOism fanaticism, you've completely lost touch with reality. This reality is that JESUS read from the scroll VERBATIM. All eyes were ALREADY fastened on Him before He read, because they'd known Him most of His earthly life & couldn't believe HE was the one performing the mighty miracles they'd heard about. They wanted to see a miracle! And they were skeptical. THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T BELIEVE HE WAS THE MESSIAH OR THE SON OF GOD. They were looking to find fault in Him, as the rest of Luke 4 plainly says. Thus, if He had NOT read verbatim, the crowd would've instantly gone ballistic. If He had "targumed", using part of one verse with a part of another, the same reaction would've occurred...He would've been accused ot Scripture-twisting.

Sure, He had full authority to add to the Scriptures, which He did...but , in reference to that which was ALREADY Scripture, the OT, He had said, "Scripture cannot be broken"...and that He had NOT come to change one jot or tittle of it.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:These are ALL WRONG.

ALL HAIL QUEEN MICHELLE! All other BVs are wrong because the Queen says so!


You don't strain something out, you strain at it.

You're totally outside of reality or common sense.

Remember, we get out "dialyze"(dialysis) from the Greek 'diulizo' which means, "to strain OUT, filter OUT, etc." "Strain AT" implies that the attempt to strain OUT was unsuccessful, which is NOT what diulizo means. Again, if you or a loved one were on dialysis, would you want the machine to strain AT or strain OUT the ompurities in the blood?


The truth is not that they strain it out, that they strain at it, but could swallow a camel. You all are not understanding the truth in the scriptures, which is causing you to falsely accuse there is error in the scriptures.

it's NOT false accusation; it's right there, available for the whole world to read.


It is rather your precious favorite flavor of the month that has altered the scriptures, and you haven't even noticed because you don't understand the scripture itself. You are guilty of this very same thing that Jesus accused the Pharisees of. How ironic.

What an imagination.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:Please stop separating my writing to make it seem as though I said something I did not say.

So,you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

This is unacceptable to me, and if you continue to do this, I am not going to discuss this with you anymore.

Looking for a way out in which you hope to save some face? Typical KJVO...


This is a form of trickery and in attempt to slander my character and my point.

M'am, your own posts have done more damage to everyone's view of your character and proven the fallacies of your points more than anyone else on earth could do.

 

[robycop3]

roby:I believe the AV came out as GOD WILLED...and so did the NIV, NKJV, NASB,
--------------------------------------------------Michelle:Then you believe in a god of confusion and error, who cannot, nor does provide his words perfectly for you, and makes you run around like a chicken with your head cut off, trying to fit the pieces together with your own reasoning and logic. Sorry, I pass, because that is what leads to deception and doubt.

No, I believe in a God...THE God...who can do ANYTHING. There's nothing He CAN'T do; there are only those things He WILL NOT do.

Evidently, you and the other KJVOs try to LIMIT GOD by saying He can't present His own words AS HE CHOOSES. The KJVO allows that freedom to a HUMAN author, but denies it to GOD. Strange...for someone who claims to WORSHIP Him.

 

[Ransom]

HankD asked:

Did you know that two of the men (one of a them a "bishop") on the KJV translation committee had (along with King James) a Baptist believer burned at the stake for opposing infant-baptism?

[etc.]

And let's not forget about Richard Thompson . . . glug glug, hic hic . . .

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:You are deceived, and continue to be deceived, because you have put the ideas, opinions, methods and beliefs of man, above that, and before that of God.

Now, what other scriptures, besides the Ten Commandments God wrote on stone with His own finger, did God Himself WRITE? Did He not give them to MEN to write?


You wouldn't know the clear meaning of the scripture if it came up and hit you upside the head because you place man's wisdom first, before faith in approaching the scriptures.

Seems as if I'm doing all right. I have no prob recognizing error, as YOU do, and I believe all the Scriptures whether or not they agree with some man-made myth.

But wait! before you holler, "Ya don't believe Easter in Acts 12:4, lemme say...I believe the message the Scripture is conveying, that is, Herod whacked James, and seeing it pleased the Jewish religious leadership, he arrested Peter, intending after the Jewish religious observance, to turn him over to the Jews. And plainly, the observance to which Luke was referring was PASSOVER. But this does NOT alter the message of what Herod did.

And my faith in Scripture is in how God presents it to US. And He simply is NOT LIMITED in how He may present it. That's the fallacy of what you say you believe.

 

[robycop3]

Ziggy:Still waiting for a reply (good or otherwise).

Hope ya aint a-holdin' yer BREFF waitin'!

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:Just because you have read it, doesn't necessarily mean you have understood it. It is apparent in many cases, you haven't understood it. Otherwise you would understand why you should reject the mv's.

roby:Just because you have read it, doesn't necessarily mean you have understood it. It is apparent in many cases, you haven't understood it. Otherwise you would understand why you should reject the KJVO myth.

 

[robycop3]

Natters:Michelle, despite your reworking of my example, your examination and conclusion are still dependent on the premise being true. That's what's circular.

Actually, Natters, she attempts an end-around "Scoot 58" by simply saying ,"The KJV is the word of God", which we all believe...instead of her actual belief that the KJV is the only VALID English translation of God's word.HER 'runner' gets tackled in the backfield...while YOU use "32 Trap"...fullback up the middle...to "score" against her fantasies.

TOUCHDOWN, NATTERS!

 

[robycop3]

MichelleOn Luke 4 compared with Isaiah, 42& 61)Yes, he read the scripture to those in the synagogue. He read to them what we have before us today in our Bible. It is apparent, when rightly dividing the word of God, that Jesus combined the the two prophecies concerning him in Isaiah, into one as he read, and as the Bible shows what He SAID as Luke wrote down what came out of his mouth. You really need to start rightly dividing the word of God.

First, Jesus read from the scroll VERBATIM, for the reasons given, reasons explained in the rest of Luke 4.

Second, there's not one hint in Scripture that Jesus combined the Scriptures. Sure, as God, and as The Word, He coulda done so, BUT HE DIDN'T!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Cix:
To discard the original Greek and Hebrew texts is absolute HERESY.

Someone emailed me wondering why I allowed this use of "HERESY" in the forum.

It is because this teaching IS heresy and can't be sugar-coated. It is so vile a heresy I cannot imagine a person even saying it.