Questions for KJVOs

[charlie parker]

Tiny Tim, Im happy to tell you this, God has never been born or begotten. The Man Christ Jesus was born of a virgin and I dont mean "young maiden" He was God manifest in the flesh, It was the flesh that was born and begotten, Not God also the triune God is most certainly not the same person, at Jesus's baptism his body came up from the water as His Soul spoke from heaven," this is my beloved---" and his spirit decended in the form of a dove all at the same time. Man was created in god's image, body Jesus, soul, the Father, and spirit, the Holy Spirit.
Charlie

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Precepts, I hate to tell you this but GOD WAS BORN.

Uh, well, no, He wasn't! The Son was born. Christ was born. Jesus was born. Mary is not Theotokus. Mary is Christokus. Many excellent scholars consider "only begotten God" to be a Gnostic corruption of the text. The manuscript evidence as well as the ancient vernaculars support the reading "son" over "God."

Even the Roman Catholic Church, which would have a vested interest in seeing "only begotten God" be the right reading, did not fall for the Gnostic corruption, and the Latin Vulgate reads "unigenitus Filius."

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Numbers 3:4  And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father." These fellows tried a mv I mean fire is fire --Right???
Charlie

This kind of abuse of scripture is absolutely wicked. This passage nothing to do with MV's or the KJV... neither of which existed when Nadab and Abihu died.

It would be closer to the truth to say that you have offered "strange fire" by declaring something to be of God when God never said it. It is you that operates outside the scope of God's Word, not us.

BTW, are you a member of HVBC?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Scott - I was thinking of "snipping" Charlies post since it is speaking evil of a translation of God's Word. It truly IS abuse.

One could, using Charlie's logic, claim that the Latin Vulgate was the pure word and the "strange fire" was the English version proliferation.

Or that the Bishops/Great/Geneva Bibles were true and that the AV1611 was "strange fire".

His whole premise is, well, "strange".

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tinytim:
Precepts, I hate to tell you this but GOD WAS BORN.

Uh, well, no, He wasn't! The Son was born. Christ was born. Jesus was born.</font>[/QUOTE] At what point was the "Son, Christ, Jesus" not God?

Are you trying to divide Christ into a human part and God part? Would you contend that Christ was not God at birth?

These questions are somewhat rhetorical but your objections seem to press further than the argument Tim made and into an argument of your projection.

Mary is not Theotokus. Mary is Christokus.

Jesus didn't derive deity from Mary and this passage doesn't suggest that He did. It gives full credit for His deity to God.

Many excellent scholars consider "only begotten God" to be a Gnostic corruption of the text.

And of course others don't. The point being this text, like many others, is to be interpretted regardless of which way it reads. It can also be misinterpretted in either form.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Scott - I was thinking of "snipping" Charlies post since it is speaking evil of a translation of God's Word. It truly IS abuse.

Please don't... it can only do harm for his position in the mind of any discerning reader.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The point being this text, like many others, is to be interpretted regardless of which way it reads. It can also be misinterpretted in either form.

IF the correct reading is God and not Son (and that is a HUGE "if") then the better translation would take the first term to mean not just "Only One" but include a filial relationship with the Father, as at Luke 9:38 ("only child") or Hebrews 11:17 ("only son") and as translated at John 1:14. The Logos is thus "only Son" and God but not Father/God.

 

[charlie parker]

Dr bob Griffin posted&gt;&gt;&gt;One could, using Charlie's logic, claim that the Latin Vulgate was the pure word and the "strange fire" was the English version proliferation"

Absolutely, then compare the fruits of both translations, it wont take long and its real easy.

As a matter of fact the witness of the Holy Ghost and comparrison of texts is where the truth will be found. I notice numerious gk words being used by various members, wonder which of the 30+ extant texts the words are from.

Charlie

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Parker, when the AV 1611 was only 40 or-so years old, had it "produced many fruits"? Can you honestly say that if the NIV tarries for 400 years, it won't have "produced many fruits"?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Phillip,

I have already answered all of your questions on another thread. It amazes me that no one here really reads things and tries to understand what is being said. Instead, peole read things with the KJVO label attached to it, and this unfortunately leads one to disregard the truth of what is being said because of this bias.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
KJB "John 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"

nasb "No man has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN GOD,who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him."

Do you really believe that the above is "the same gospel"?
Charlie

NASB is incorrect. Who begot God? Do you mean God the Mother begot God?

NASB is incorrect because this verse denied that Jesus is the SON of God.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by charlie parker:
KJB "John 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"

nasb "No man has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN GOD,who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him."

Do you really believe that the above is "the same gospel"?
Charlie

NASB is incorrect. Who begot God? Do you mean God the Mother begot God?

NASB is incorrect because this verse denied that Jesus is the SON of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Remember that the Greek text didn't have punctuation. Punctuate it properly and the NASB is correct:

"No man has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN, GOD, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him."

 

[charlie parker]

Why bother? the english is already punctuated correctly---no man has seen YOU at any time, they have only seen your body, you are inside your body, since Jesus was the body of God, no one saw God, they saw His body, When the obscure greek is not clear, the infalible English clears it up. Glory---
Charlie

 

[charlie parker]

Someone posted that I was playing a silly game of oneuponyou or something like that and stated that the mv's had never contained the RC Appoc- in the text or between the Testaments, what he didnt tell us is that the texts underlying these mv's did contain the PC approc IN THE TEXTS.Aleph and Siniaticus both contain this blasphemous trash, and Wescott and Hort were both snuggeled up to Rome.
Also it was pointed out to me that some of the translators of the Authorized Bible were water puppies and other heresies, I cant imagine what bearing this could possibley have on their work of translating, surely you dont think a mans beliefs or conduct would have any bearing on writing Holy Scripture, we can probably go to Holy Scripture for the answer to this question, say, the longest book in the bible, for instance, take a close look at Psalm 23 and see just how much lying, stealing, adultry, and murder affected the writers ability to write what God inspired him to write.
Because of Calvery
Charlie

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
and Wescott and Hort were both snuggeled up to Rome.

Also it was pointed out to me that some of the translators of the Authorized Bible were water puppies and other heresies, I cant imagine what bearing this could possibley have on their work of translating, surely you dont think a mans beliefs or conduct would have any bearing on writing Holy Scripture,

You sure seem to. On the one hand, it is OK for the KJV translators to hold false, romish doctrines but on the other hand you make an unsupported attack on Westcott and Hort for being snuggled up to Rome.

You can't have it both ways. Sorry Charley. Either a scholars beliefs matter when it comes to their work on evaluating the original language texts and/or translating them or it doesn't.

Oh, and by the way, what was the religion of the originator of the textus receptus?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by charlie parker:

When the obscure greek is not clear, the infalible English clears it up.

The translation is always subordinate to the original language text, and never the original language text to the translation. No translation, however excellent, can be "infallible."

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Why bother? the english is already punctuated correctly---no man has seen YOU at any time, they have only seen your body, you are inside your body, since Jesus was the body of God, no one saw God, they saw His body, When the obscure greek is not clear, the infalible English clears it up. Glory---
Charlie

"The infallible English"? please don't say you believe that the AV translators were prophets, when in fact the were Anglican interpreters.
BTW, which English is infallible? that of the AV1611? KJV1769? etc (and they are different, or there wouldn't be the 1769 edition to begin with). Sounds like a Ruckmanite to me

 

[tinytim]

You're exactly right Michelle,

the KJVOs can not see through their bias clearly to see the truth.

And Skan and Charlie, don't get so upset. I'm not saying God, the father, was born. but, and follow what I am saying.
Mary was a virgin.
The Holy Spirit overshadowed her.
The Word was *placed* in her
The Word was Born into flesh
The Word is God.
The Word is known to us as "Jesus"
Therefore, Jesus is God.
Jesus was Born.

In Geometry, I learned that if A =B, And B = C, then A = C

Jesus is God
Jesus was Born
God (the Son) was Born.

No need to go deeper than that. I am not saying Jesus was conceived (the way RCC says),
I'm just saying Jesus (as God) was born.
both the KJV, and NASB are correct.
By reading both, you realize that Jesus is not Just the Son, But is also God

By reading both versions, you get the sense of Scripture. That is why we need more than one translation.

In the KJV Jesus is The Son
In the NASB Jesus is God
Both are true. Or are you all denying that Jesus is God?

 

[charlie parker]

Scott asked&gt;&gt;Oh, and by the way, what was the religion of the originator of the textus receptus? &lt;&lt;&lt;

What was the religeon of the author of 2/3 of the NT, and how did his religeon affect his writings?

Charlie

 

[charlie parker]

tinytim wrote&gt;&gt;&gt;Jesus is God
Jesus was Born
God (the Son) was Born.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Right
Right
Wrong, Jesus the MAN was born, Not God, The baby feeding at the breast of the virgin could be tortured and slain, God cannot.
Charlie