KJVO Lies

[natters]

michelle said "Because God preserved it, and that verse is the truth."

How do you know God preserved it? How do you know it wasn't preserved by man, but removed by God to "correct" that which shouldn't have been added in the first place?

michelle said "The NIV leaves one without the truth, and an unanswered question."

So? Maybe that's why somebody with good intentions in centuries past decided to add it to God's word, to make it seem more complete. How can you know this isn't the case?

 

[natters]

michele said "John 16 and 17"

Isn't that what a Geneva-onlyist could have said as well? Why do those chapters only support KJV-onlyism?

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:Please provide your belief with scripture. Please provide for me, where God allows standing errors in his words of truth?

First, there's the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 in the KJV. This is clearly wrong in the KJV translation, but not in the Greek. Why? Because God caused Luke to write "pascha", which to Luke, meant "passover" and nothing else. How do I know this? Because Easter didn't exist in Luke's time, so pascha could NOT have meant anything else to him. Resurrection day wasn't called Easter till roughly 200 years after Luke's time.

Then, there's the words "the image of" ADDED to Romans 11:4. Those words aren't found in any known Greek ms containing that verse.

You say you aren't KJVO, Michelle. So what other specific version(s) do you recommend?

Where's the post containing the statement you alleded I made? If you can't produce it nor apologize for being wrong, you make yourself out to be a liar.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
And God had already provided the Tyndale's Bible in English. By whose authority do you use another version?
--------------------------------------------------

John 16 and 17.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

O.K., I've read & then re-read John chapters 16 & 17 (from my KJV).

These chapters offer support for KJVOnlyism in what way?????

 

[robycop3]

Our own language" is not 400 year old Elizabethan English. In fact, it was not the common tongue of folks in the 1600's either.
--------------------------------------------------

Michelle:Many say this, but then they must hide behind the Greek and Hebrew to justify the errors that have been made evident 400 years later.

It's not "hiding" at all. What if you knew Koine Greek/Hebrew forwards & backwards, and knew an English translation had some booboos? Would you be fully honest with yourself and with others to simply ignore them?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The KJV is an interpretation of men. It didn't just drop outta the sky.
--------------------------------------------------

IT was an inspired (not God breathed, but God motivated) translation through the providence of God - and has been kept preserved.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:How many translators and scholars do you know today that have a working knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek? How many of these people have studied these languages from the time they were children?

How many AV translators had a typewriter or word processor? How many of them conversed instantly with each other while miles apart? How many of them had access to all the material available today?


How many of these people were educated in the American Public school system?

Almost all the Americans, and more than one of the non-Americans.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
The KJV is an interpretation of men. It didn't just drop outta the sky.
--------------------------------------------------

IT was an inspired (not God breathed, but God motivated) translation through the providence of God - and has been kept preserved.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

O.K., I'll bite. Why do you believe this to true of the KJV only; and not any other english translation, either before or after the KJV?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The proof is in the pudding. Deny them till you turn blue, but they're still present for all to see. We've proved "Easter" in acts 12;4 is such a man-made error.

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

You only say this because you are allowing yourself to be deceived regarding this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[robycop3]

And God had already provided the Tyndale's Bible in English. By whose authority do you use another version?
--------------------------------------------------

Michelle:John 16 and 17.

I could apply them to any number of versions...but YOU keep saying, "God has already provided us with His word inEnglish & we need no further versions." Therefore, you should be using only the Tyndale's Bible if you really mean what you say.

 

[robycop3]

The proof is in the pudding. Deny them till you turn blue, but they're still present for all to see. We've proved "Easter" in acts 12;4 is such a man-made error.

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

Michelle:You only say this because you are allowing yourself to be deceived regarding this issue.

We've provided the proof from history and Scripture. I have NOT been deceived...YOU are. You refuse to believe the plain truth, presented to you in everyday English. You place your myth ahead of reality. You have no scriptural rationale for anything you tell us.

You say you aren't KJVO. So, what other specific version(s) do you recommend?

Where's the post containing the statement you've alleged I made? if you can't produce it, just admit your error, and I'll forgive you. Otherwise, you stand as a liar.

 

[robycop3]

The KJV is an interpretation of men. It didn't just drop outta the sky.
--------------------------------------------------

Michelle:IT was an inspired (not God breathed, but God motivated) translation through the providence of God - and has been kept preserved.

And so has every other valid English BV been thus inspired/preserved.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
How many AV translators had a typewriter or word processor? How many of them conversed instantly with each other while miles apart? How many of them had access to all the material available today?


How many of these people were educated in the American Public school system?

Almost all the Americans, and more than one of the non-Americans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now compare these things to those of the KJB translators honestly. You will find a big difference. And all the available manuscripts that are now available today have been corrupted, disagree, and have been dead in the churches. God is not doing a new thing, like some falsely believe. He is the same God yesturday, today, and forever, and he has already preserved his words for us in our own language from those that were preserved previous. These new manuscripts and methods are evidenced that they are different and are the REAL cause for all this division that you complain about. God is not the author of confusion.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "He is the same God yesturday, today, and forever, and he has already preserved his words for us in our own language from those that were preserved previous."

No, according to you he didn't preserve his words, he corrected them. How do you know he did this, and how do you know he didn't do it again?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
O.K., I'll bite. Why do you believe this to true of the KJV only; and not any other english translation, either before or after the KJV?
--------------------------------------------------

I do believe this of the Bibles prior to the KJB. The KJB was the continuation of the providence of God in our language. Why? Because the Enlish language was being established, and when it was perfected, this is where the preservation began. I can't see this same thing with the mv's because they are using different texts, foreign to the believing churches in history and different methods used to translate. The approach and reason for these versions was very different from those of the KJB and it's predecessors. The mv's started by and through the will of men, who reviled the Textus Receptus. Their heretical beliefs regarding our Lord Jesus Christ are evident in their writings and in the versions (however subtle) that follow.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
IT was an inspired (not God breathed, but God motivated) translation through the providence of God - and has been kept preserved.

I see no support, scriptural or historical, for making this statement exclusive to the KJV, or any other translation.

 

[natters]

michelle said "Because the Enlish language was being established, and when it was perfected, this is where the preservation began."

Preservation BEGAN then? Preservation wasn't happening before then? The verses promising preservation were lies until this point?

michelle said "Their heretical beliefs regarding our Lord Jesus Christ are evident in their writings"

If you are referring to Westcott and Hort, this is completely untrue.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
I do believe this of the Bibles prior to the KJB. The KJB was the continuation of the providence of God in our language. Why? Because the Enlish language was being established, and when it was perfected, this is where the preservation began.

The English language has continued to evolve since 1611. The Elizabethan tongue is not the language spoken today.

I can't see this same thing with the mv's because they are using different texts, foreign to the believing churches in history and different methods used to translate.

Is your beef with translations themselves, or the source texts? There have been several translations since 1611 that use the same source texts as the KJV. The MKJV, which I own, is a more accurate translation than the KJV, preserving the translational style of the KJV, but updating verbage which is no longer in use or has evolved since 1611.

The mv's started by and through the will of men, who reviled the Textus Receptus.

While this is strictly nothing but a personal opinion, again, this doesn't make a case for single-translationism. It only makes a case for source text preservation.

Their heretical beliefs regarding our Lord Jesus Christ are evident in their writings and in the versions (however subtle) that follow.

Yet, you have no problem with the KJV translators being heretical. You freely admit that they filled the KJV with marginal notes that contain heresy. In addition, you have so far dodged the question of the Dea Sea Scrolls, which support the manuscripts which predate the TR.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Where's the post containing the statement you've alleged I made? if you can't produce it, just admit your error, and I'll forgive you. Otherwise, you stand as a liar.
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

I explained this to you a long while ago, but you never accepted it. I explained to you that it wasn't a specific statement you made, but your overall posts and what you say in them that brought me to that conclusion. You never accept any answers I give you, because they never are what you want them to be. I am sorry that it upset you. Will you please just forgive me?, forget about it?, and move on? Many things are said to me and about me all the time here on the BB boards that are wrong and very mean, but I don't continually harp on it. I try my best not to let it affect me personally, because I do not come here for selfish reasons, but out of love, care and concern for you all in Jesus Christ. I take alot of beating, but I forgive, forget and move on. It really isn't good for you, me or anyone else robycop to hold grudges.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Preservation BEGAN then? Preservation wasn't happening before then? The verses promising preservation were lies until this point?
--------------------------------------------------

In our language of English.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle