King James Bible

[Mike Berzins]

I attack the KJVO doctrine from the basis that it SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. Why isn't it true? Because there's not one quark of evidence showing it to be true, with the LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT being most telling. Every TRUE doctrine in the pantheon of Christian doctrines are either taken directly from Scripture, or are clearly implied from it. If we were to accept doctrines thus totally lacking in support, we might as well accept the "Da Vinci Code".

Want more people to believe KJVO? Then please PROVE IT'S TRUE! until then, we'll continue to treat it as a "foreign body" trying to infect Christianity.

So does the fact that there are 66 and only 66 books ordained by God to be in the canon of scripture have any scriptural support? If this doctrine is not taken directly from scripture, or clearly implied from it, does that mean it is not a TRUE doctrine?

Hope this thread doesn't close without one of the "Freedom Readers" taking a stab at this one.

 

[Mike Berzins]

Acts 2, the first "pentecost".

There was no "better translations" of the scriptures occuring in Acts 2. There were men preaching who were supernaturally endowed by God to preach to folks in other languages. I am looking for an example where someone reads the scripture and then says "a better translation would be such and such." Because there is a real lot of that going on today.

 

[Deacon]

I've got to break in before something breaks.
Thirteen posts in a row!
I think that's a record Mike.

"I am looking for an example where someone reads the scripture and then says "a better translation would be such and such."

Examine the NT quotes from the OT, they accepted other versions without questioning God's ability to use a variety of versions to communicate his message.

Rob

 

[Mike Berzins]

Easy!

Here's a couple, one from each Testament:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26. Please feel free to consult any unbiased hebrew expert.

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . Fornication is evil, but how often is it done for love of money?

Regarding Genesis 1:2: The King James transaltors were also experts, and they obviously disagreed with your experts. Nothing proved here.

Regarding the love of money being the root of all evil: It would take more time than I have to answer this with great detail, but here's the quick answer for any honest student to ponder. The verse (in English) says the love of money is the root of all evil. It does not say the love of money is the cause of all sin. Brush up on the English as God uses it in the King James Bibile, and meditate on the passage. The evil of fornication is surely fed by the root of the love of money. The fornication that Christians daily enjoy being displayed on their television sets, is there because of the love of money. The effect that these programs then have on the culture in promoting and encouraging fornication is self evident.

So the love of money does not cause fornication, but it feeds the evil of fornication, being its root. Hence the King James Bible is not in error here.

However, I won't toss my KJVs because of a few man-made booboos.

Shouldn't you at least correct the "known" errors and then publish a version with these "errors" corrected? Or if there is a version that corrects this, shouldn't you be promoting it above the KJB? If your point about Genesis 1:2 is correct, many might read their KJB and think there is no gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, as your rendering suggests. Surely you wouldn't want people to be in doctrinal error because of a mistake in the "word of God", would you?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Page 21 - thread closed.

In the future Mike please try to post more info in each one. Multi-posting like this is frowned upon on this board.