Just Something I Read

[Amy.G]

But you left off the qualifying statement that Jesus added...


"Because my time has not come"... or ...

To paraphrase..."I'm not going because it's not time for me to go yet"....

So.. (And I like your pizza example) You would say "I am not going to eat, because the time has not come yet" I would not call you a liar later when the time for you to eat pizza came...

BTW... The right time to eat pizza is when I am around.

I think you left off the qualifying factor, which is "this feast".

"I'm not going to "this feast". He did go to that feast.


The right time to eat pizza is when no one is around...so I can have it all. :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Face it, several of the so-called "MVs" are in exactly the same place as the KJV, at least on this verse, as I have now shown. :thumbsup:

Ed

Yes, some do have it, but not without a footnote questioning it's validity.

 

[tenderhearted]

I am a KJV only, and I am not confused when I read that bible.

I dont knock anyone else for what they read, please do not misunderstand, but I dont trust any other version but the kJB, I posted in another thread as to why I dont trust them.

God did reach me through an NIV, but it was in a most unexpected way, which led me to the kjb.

The slightest change in words can lead to destruction, look what that old serpent did to eve:

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Eve added a little to what God said which was this:

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

so eve added that little tid bit, neither shall ye touch it, and the devil used that to tempt her.

changing the words of God is dangerous.

I hesitate to say that the bible should say this instead of that, because I was not chosen by the LORD to write down the words of the BIBLE. I trust the KJV.

:thumbsup:

 

[Johnv]

The point is the Greek shows what the English confirms.

You're in error. The word is absent in the early source texts, and doesn't appear until later source texts do.

If you look hard enough using a word for word expectation you will never see why the KJV was translated with such accuracy.:thumbsup:

That statement is refuted by the fact that the word appears in all translations that rely on primarily on later source texts instead of earlier texts. The OP ignores that fact in an attempt to artificially prop up the KJV. The problem with that attempt is that the facts don't support it.

IThe slightest change in words can lead to destruction, look what that old serpent did to eve:

If you truly believed that, then you should abandon any translations based on the later source texts, since the word in question appears to have been added to scripture over time. That would include, but not be limited to, the KJV.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Whats the big deal???

Jesus told his brothers He wasn't going (because the Jews were wanting to kill Him) then after they left Jesus changed His mind and decided to go in secret.

He CHANGED HIS MIND, people do it all the time and obviously so did Jesus.

Huh? I've never seen anywhere in Scripture that shows what you said.

Of course you might have gottne that from another version, but not from the KJV.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Is saying I'm amazed considered bashing?

Anyone who shows the KJV to be accurate in any form or fashion is GUILTY of bashing.:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Yes, some do have it, but not without a footnote questioning it's validity.

You mean some one would actually question the word of God's validity??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Say it isn't so!:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

You're in error. The word is absent in the early source texts, and doesn't appear until later source texts do.
Then there must be earlier source texts. Or do you accuse the scribes of error?

That statement is refuted by the fact that the word appears in all translations that rely on primarily on later source texts instead of earlier texts. The OP ignores that fact in an attempt to artificially prop up the KJV. The problem with that attempt is that the facts don't support it.

If I said I am not going to reply to your post. I reply to your post. You would undoubtedly accuse me of telling a lie.

The rather is that the KJV perfectly relates the event without the possibility of a lie being told, regardless of your demands for material evidence.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The slightest change in words can lead to destruction, look what that old serpent did to eve...




...changing the words of God is dangerous.

Why was it acceptable for the KJV translators to change the earlier English versions?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Is saying I'm amazed considered bashing?

You are correct. I took that wrong.

Please accept my apology.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You mean some one would actually question the word of God's validity??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Say it isn't so!:sleep:

Sad isn't it? Folks here on a regular basis question the validity of my Bible .

 

[Dale-c]

Sad isn't it? Folks here on a regular basis question the validity of my Bible .

Such is the double standard of KJVO doctrine.

 

[annsni]

You mean some one would actually question the word of God's validity??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Say it isn't so!:sleep:

If the KJV translators themselves noted that there were words that were questionable as to their meaning, and as such, they would use a margin note to show the alternate - yet equally valid - reading, then why are there those who say that the modern versions that do that is wrong? What's wrong is that the translators of the KJV were very careful in their work and spent their time to be sure that they had what was the most accurate translation in the vulgar tongue. Yet later on, those margin notes, which were of utmost importance, were removed from the translation. Why? I don't know. But they were there to begin with - for a reason. I posted the reason in an earlier post.

What do the KJVO people say to the fact that the KJV translators used the same methods that are being attacked in the modern versions?

 

[Baptist4life]

Once again this has turned into a KJVO thread!


I really don't care what version that verse came from. My point is this:




"I am not going."

DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS

"I am not going YET."



Period.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The ... Nkjv, ..., oppose themselves by including the word with a footnote suggesting it shouldn't be there.

This is not true. Here is the footnote

NU-text omits yet

A simple statement. It does not suggest that it should not be included.

Is the writer of this email willing to put the KJV marginal notes to the same test?

A post which attacks every version other than the KJV, especially using such deception, is going to be a KJVO thread.

 

[Baptist4life]

You people on this forum amaze me..................yea, CK4, I said amaze, I must be bashing......anyway, DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE TURNED INTO KJVO arguments? And did it ever occur to you that sometimes, just sometimes, the KJV might be RIGHT??? Would that kill you to admit it?


You all say you have no problem with the KJV, yet you never fail to try and make every post about it a KJVO thread. I will never agree that ALL versions of the Bible are the Word of God when they say different things. That's an impossibility. I'm not saying the KJV is THE Bible. but I AM saying one version saying one thing and another version either omitting that passage, or including that passage, or whatever, means that SOMEBODY IS WRONG.


I want the Scriptures that God wrote, whatever version they are in, KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, or some other version, but they cannot ALL be the correct version when they differ so much.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You people on this forum amaze me..................yea, CK4, I said amaze, I must be bashing......a

I am sad that an apology (see post #50) is not enough to satisfy you . I had much higher regard for you than to expect that.

A thread which is started tocondemn every version but he KJV, even using deception to do so, is destined to be a KJVO thread.

I love my KJV. It is a master of translational work. I cannot however condone a concept which says something about my Bible (NKJV) that is not true. In this particular case,if the KJV is right so is the NKJV. Would it kill the writer of this original e-mail to admit that?

 

[Baptist4life]

I am sad that an apology (see post #50) is not enough to satisfy you . I had much higher regard for you than to expect that.

I'm sorry, CK4, I meant to put a ":laugh:" in there after the "yea, CK4, I said amaze, I must be bashing". I was being funny..........I thought............ My apologies.



Anyway, I want to say that I use the KJV, I also have a NKJV. I have read quite a few, though not all, different versions of the Bible. It is not my imagination.............. they do not all say the same thing. Some include passages, some do not have the passages in there. My common sense then tells me that ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE WRONG . My quandary is trying to figure out which ones are right or wrong. But telling me they ALL are legitimate versions of Scripture just cannot be true. The translations come from different manuscripts, which is the explanation for including/excluding certain passages. They cannot both be right! Either they are supposed to be Scripture or they are not supposed to be in Scripture.

 

[annsni]

You people on this forum amaze me..................yea, CK4, I said amaze, I must be bashing......anyway, DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE TURNED INTO KJVO arguments? And did it ever occur to you that sometimes, just sometimes, the KJV might be RIGHT??? Would that kill you to admit it?


You all say you have no problem with the KJV, yet you never fail to try and make every post about it a KJVO thread. I will never agree that ALL versions of the Bible are the Word of God when they say different things. That's an impossibility. I'm not saying the KJV is THE Bible. but I AM saying one version saying one thing and another version either omitting that passage, or including that passage, or whatever, means that SOMEBODY IS WRONG.


I want the Scriptures that God wrote, whatever version they are in, KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, or some other version, but they cannot ALL be the correct version when they differ so much.

Hmmm - let's see where it went KJVO in this thread. Let's look at post #1:

One little word makes all the difference. The KJB does not make a liar out of Jesus. The NIV, Nkjv, and some others, oppose themselves by including the word with a footnote suggesting it shouldn't be there. The above versions have Jesus telling a lie, meaning He's not "the way, the truth, and the life", nor is He God "which cannot lie". But those are not important doctrines according to modern versions.

Yep - that says it right there. It's a KJVO thread.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'm sorry, CK4, I meant to put a ":laugh:" in there after the "yea, CK4, I said amaze, I must be bashing". I was being funny..........I thought............ My apologies.



Anyway, I want to say that I use the KJV, I also have a NKJV. I have read quite a few, though not all, different versions of the Bible. It is not my imagination.............. they do not all say the same thing. Some include passages, some do not have the passages in there. My common sense then tells me that ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE WRONG . My quandary is trying to figure out which ones are right or wrong. But telling me they ALL are legitimate versions of Scripture just cannot be true. The translations come from different manuscripts, which is the explanation for including/excluding certain passages. They cannot both be right! Either they are supposed to be Scripture or they are not supposed to be in Scripture.

No problem on the apology.

No one here claims that ALL translations are true, and your claim that they are all from different manuscripts is simply false. The NKJV and a couple of lesser known translations are from the same manuscript body. My frustration comes when the NKJV is lumped in with all the critical text versions. This simply is not true.