Love this verse about understanding the Bible and why different versions .

"Do not say, 'The former days were better than these,' for such is not wisdom."

 

Your last statement has no grounds for substanciation. The world is sliding off into apostacy and you nor anyone else can deny it. New versions aren't the "magic" tool they are put up to be.</font>[/QUOTE] Nice shot at avoidance but you didn't answer the challenge at all. I asked for scripture not your opinion.

The NT gives evidence that the church was sliding off into apostacy even before the Bible was finished. From the 400's to 1400's, Europe was completely dominated by an apostate church. The Anglicans whose Bible you claim was inspired were not what either of us would consider Bible believing Christians. The Adventists and what eventually became the JW's grew out of the early 1800's as did the Mormons.

The point is, we aren't the first generation to see widespread nor acute apostacy. Apostacy has been a problem for every generation of Bible believing Christians in the past and will continue to be until the Lord comes.

And like I said, I didn't give you your opinions. You chose them and identified yourself.

Why? Because when you make a claim that I have doubts about, I ask for scripture rather than just accepting your opinion? Because when you post something that simply is not true, I am willing to call for proof?

What you "'believe' as true" is absolutely meaningless. If you want to present your ideas on a public discussion board then you should be prepared to defend them with some sort of proof. You also shouldn't become offended when someone disagrees with your views because they do have factual proof to the contrary.

As far as "denigrating" is concerned- as long as you are willing to post false information for which you have no proof, someone like me will hopefully be there to challenge you on it.

Probably because the world does not read those clearer translations. If they did and if they believed and lived by them, the world would become much more holy. However, this is not a function of Bible versions. It is the exclusive domain of the Holy Spirit.

The Christian church grew from a hand full of trembling disciples into the dominant force in the Roman Empire within 200 years... before anyone had a complete copy of the Bible- with or without copying errors. Churches might have the OT, Gospels, Acts, and a few epistles. It is unlikely that individual copies of the scriptures were common and the ones that existed probably contained numerous copying errors.

For you to attribute what we see in the world today to MV's is ridiculous... but I would be willing to look at scriptural support you have for this idea. Please don't "be creative" though. Use the scripture in context and in a way that specifically identifies the KJV.

 

"Do not say, 'The former days were better than these,' for such is not wisdom." </font>[/QUOTE]Whose wisdom? Yours or the Lord's as laid out in Proverbs 1,2,3?

We are to revert back to the old paths of righteousness, God has not changed.

 

Your last statement has no grounds for substanciation. The world is sliding off into apostacy and you nor anyone else can deny it. New versions aren't the "magic" tool they are put up to be.</font>[/QUOTE] Nice shot at avoidance but you didn't answer the challenge at all. I asked for scripture not your opinion.

The NT gives evidence that the church was sliding off into apostacy even before the Bible was finished. From the 400's to 1400's, Europe was completely dominated by an apostate church. The Anglicans whose Bible you claim was inspired were not what either of us would consider Bible believing Christians. The Adventists and what eventually became the JW's grew out of the early 1800's as did the Mormons.

The point is, we aren't the first generation to see widespread nor acute apostacy. Apostacy has been a problem for every generation of Bible believing Christians in the past and will continue to be until the Lord comes.

And like I said, I didn't give you your opinions. You chose them and identified yourself.

Why? Because when you make a claim that I have doubts about, I ask for scripture rather than just accepting your opinion? Because when you post something that simply is not true, I am willing to call for proof?

What you "'believe' as true" is absolutely meaningless. If you want to present your ideas on a public discussion board then you should be prepared to defend them with some sort of proof. You also shouldn't become offended when someone disagrees with your views because they do have factual proof to the contrary.

As far as "denigrating" is concerned- as long as you are willing to post false information for which you have no proof, someone like me will hopefully be there to challenge you on it.

Probably because the world does not read those clearer translations. If they did and if they believed and lived by them, the world would become much more holy. However, this is not a function of Bible versions. It is the exclusive domain of the Holy Spirit.

The Christian church grew from a hand full of trembling disciples into the dominant force in the Roman Empire within 200 years... before anyone had a complete copy of the Bible- with or without copying errors. Churches might have the OT, Gospels, Acts, and a few epistles. It is unlikely that individual copies of the scriptures were common and the ones that existed probably contained numerous copying errors.

For you to attribute what we see in the world today to MV's is ridiculous... but I would be willing to look at scriptural support you have for this idea. Please don't "be creative" though. Use the scripture in context and in a way that specifically identifies the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]Psalms 12:6,7. Take them in context and please don't pervert them.

 

The Lord's, by way of translation of the God-breathed text....

[ June 26, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Psalms 12:6,7. Take them in context and please don't pervert them. </font>[/QUOTE]In context and unperverted, this scripture refers to a promise from God to the righteous. This is born out by the subject of the Psalm. It isn't about words. It is about people. The Hebrew makes it even more clear but isn't necessary to properly understand the verse.

But to your specific point, even if I accepted your errant (being kind... very kind) interpretation of this passage, this scripture says nothing about the KJV nor about MV's causing apostacy.

You have doubled the violence committed by KJVO's against this scripture... and continued your failure to answer the challenge.

 

Which has aaaaaaaabsolutely nothing at all to do with the KJV of the Bible. The KJV itself is not "the old paths of righteousness" nor is the KJV the God who "has not changed"- He didn't change in 1611 when the KJV came out as a brand new VERSION of the Bible.

The old paths are taught in MV's, just a little more clearly. It still requires the Spirit to walk them and He isn't a captive of the KJV.

 

Oh?

Ok,where are they? remember,the beggar died(Luke 16:22).

 

Oh?

Ok,where are they? remember,the beggar died(Luke 16:22). </font>[/QUOTE]Good thing you brought this up because it demonstrates that your position is wrong. The existence of a godly man in the time of Christ (some 1000 years after this psalm was written) proves that the word of the Lord is true. He preserved the godly man. They did not perish from that generation until this one.

 

I think Dynamic Equivalence in translation has made much of the Word of God sappy and weak in its wording and style because it is catering to our lazyness as readers. Words in the text are very important, not just the thought of the writer. See Gal. 3:16 to see how Paul was concerned about the accurate use of words in his interpreting what the text was saying. I love the KJV because of its majestic style, reverent spirit, and its stress on accuracy. However, if the KJV1611 version is alone the word of God, then why has it gone through several revisions since 1611. What we have today is not the 1611 version!! Also, the Authorized version was not used by the majority of the public for decades after its inception. The Geneva held its prominent status for a long time. If the textus receptus was translated to english word for word it would be completely unreadable. So, any way you approach it, the KJV is in fact just a translation, albeit a very good one! Most languages of the world have only one translation of the scriptures, do we actually believe that God Almighty would not give them His Word, yet they know nothing of the KJV. Can we say that the long line of essentially literal translations before and after the KJV1611 are not God's Word? Some translations are excellent, some are really pathetic and are only to make money. Many godly men shed their blood because they believed God would have them translate the scripture to their native tongues before the KJV was around. Let's not esteem any version above our esteem for the Living Word...the Lord Jesus Christ!!