Regarding the King James Bible

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Elk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elk:
For what it is worth...and to my surprise...
I had a super natural encounter with the Lord a few days ago, and...
I just want to say that I now really believe that the King James Bible is very precious to the Lord.

Only one to two percent of those during the NT times could even read, In other places it may have been as high as ten percent but that is doubtful. They encountered God in a supernatural way without ever being able to read a manuscript. They had faith in God. God doesn't need your Bible. You do.

Heb. 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but HE watches out for HIS WORD, does HE not?
Last night, I dug out these older tapes I have of Jim Bakker being interviewed (after "I Was Wrong"), and he was asked, "How does one get to know God?"
His answer, read the WORD. </font>[/QUOTE]I would disagree with Jim Baaker on that point. We must go farther than just read the Bible. We must obey it. For if we do not obey it, we are deceived.

James 1:22, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."

We must have more than an intellectual knowledge. We must have an intimate knowledge of God. That only comes as we know Him personally through His word prayer and daily walking with him moment by moment. Everyday is a supernatural encounter with God. Some of those we like and others we don't. But God is in charge of all.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB.

What do you do when the KJV disagrees with the Greek text from which it was translated? What do you do when the KJV says one thing and the Greek text from which it was translated says something different?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB.

What do you do when the KJV disagrees with the Greek text from which it was translated? What do you do when the KJV says one thing and the Greek text from which it was translated says something different? </font>[/QUOTE]Some people assume that the KJV
is inerrant (alternate wording: axiomatically
consider the KJV as inerrant) so go try
to find out (by logic, training, or devine
revelation) what God was trying to teach
by that questionable passage.

Others assume that all English Versions
of merit are inerrant, applying the same
process to apparent discrempities between
versions.

Others hide their head, deceive themselves
into thinking there is no differnce
or turning a blind eye to such "look like
discrempacies".
the KJV

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yup! Today, they're called. "believers of false doctrines", such as KJVO.

Oh really??? Can you show the exact verse where Job speaks of "KJVO"? If not,you have falsley represented what the Bible(KJB)says;the same thing you blather on about concerning Bible(KJB) believers...

Why the double standard??? </font>[/QUOTE]Duh...a little reminder...YOU were the gent who brought up that verse & tried to read something into it that isn't there.

As for the exact verse where he mentions KJVO, it's right after the verse where he mentions NON-KJVO as giving dark council.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
See? I ask a simple question and all these "typical"? Christians attack me and the King James. You're not changing me, or the Word of God for that matter.

So who's seeking to change the word of God? As for you personally, as an American, you have the right to be wrong.

All you "typicals" are doing is setting the "concrete" that much harder. The more you argue the more I see you in the Philistine camp!

Sorry, but I see no PLO members in this board.(Think ye that the Palestinians aren't Philistines? Study a little history, and Zechariah 9.) As for your "concrete, its sadly lacking in re-bars.

There is a verse: 1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

There are quite a few other verses also in a Bible. What's your point?

Oh, I don't need Greek to tell what English means in English, I do have a dictionary, maybe you could get one relevant enough to give root meanings and you wouldn't have to waste so much time studying ancient Greek that NNE uses! Or be misled by it for that matter.

Well, the English translation DOES have a source. And people DID use the Koine Greek. It wasn't written merely as a curiosity. But if you care so little for your Bible that you're not interested in its origins, that's YOUR prob.

If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB. But first you'll have to do it from the KJB, or it's predecessors. (Alexandrian texts are not KJB predecessors, or didn't Westcott and Hort tell you that?)

Can YOU prove the Alex texts corrupt?

When Samson fell for Delilah/Alexandrian texts, he was found sporting before the Philistines in the devil's grinding mill, going round and round, round and round.

Naturally, you left out the part where Samson violated his Nazirite vow to God to not cut his hair. Typical of a KJVO to have a hamburger minus the meat.


(That's all I see the mv crowd doing today: round and round, round and round) Then came the time he reached up and found his hair had grown back/KJB, pushed the two pillars aside and destroyed the Philistines once more.

Same story's found in the Geneva Bible(pre-KJV) and in the NIV(Post KJV). Your analogy's pointless.

Now, reckon this analogy has any relevance to today and mv's? Better get back to the Holy Bible/ King James Bible, Samson!

Never "got away" from it, Simon. God's not limited to just the KJV and neither am I.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> BTW, we "typical" Christians attack KJVO with a vengeance,

I know, but your theology in the above quote is heresy: "Vengence is mine thus saith the LORD; I will repay"

So taking vengence according to what you think is not Biblical. God hasn't taken vengence against the KJB or it's believers, and won't for that matter, it's not under the "curse". This one brought them out of their lairs before: Psalm 12:6,7

BTW, how do you mv's get "words" to mean people?

Oh, I understand the context preceding is all about people, but then the Words that give life to the poor and the needy are set forth as The Standard, pure Words, not people mind you.

(in ancient Kione Greek) translated into English, 1611 to present-

</font>[/QUOTE]OK, let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that your take of Ps. 12:6-7 is correct, that V 7 is about God's words. That spells the end of KJVO. If God has preserved His word & passed along each part of it to every generation as He presented it to His various prophets and scribes, that means ti's been among mankind complete since C. 100 AD. We see from Acts 2 that GOD HIMSELF translated much of His word into many languages at once, & from that time on, men began to write translations of the rest of His word into their own languages.

We see that no two English BVs are alike, but we know God has preserved/presented His word from the gitgo. Therefore, only a few possibilities exist:

(1) God didn't preserve His word after all.This thought is totally dismissed.

(2) God has presented His preserved word AS HE CHOSE. I believe this. After all, JESUS HIMSELF, and His apostles whose words are recorded in Scripture, plainly read or quoted from a different version of Isaiah besides the version translated into our Bibles. This is borne out in the KJV as well as in other versions.

From all this, we see GOD is NOT limited to just one version, so why should WE, His followers and servants, be thus limited?

However, if YOU wish to be thus stuck in the mud, so be it...

 

[Precepts]

Naturally, you left out the part where Samson violated his Nazirite vow to God to not cut his hair. Typical of a KJVO to have a hamburger minus the meat.

Uh, you must have gotten that out of the niv, Samson didn't cut his own hair, Delilah did.

If you're so educated as you attempt to indicate by your boasts, then why have you mispelled Nazerite?

Same story's found in the Geneva Bible(pre-KJV) and in the NIV(Post KJV). Your analogy's pointless.

Yeah, but there's a big difference between sirloin and chopped sirloin with soybean added, and the niv adds the soybean. My point reached it's destination, or you wouldn't have reacted, but then I don't have a "point/counter point" mentality. (picture that image having two points, if you need a hint.)

Never "got away" from it, Simon. God's not limited to just the KJV and neither am I.

Sounds just like what Thomas might say, you're still waiting to see the wounds in His hands and put your hand into his side. I don't limit the Holy One of Israel with my doubts, I know where to go when I need help, God's Word/King James 1611.

You have almost sawn the limb from the tree, but in your cartoon mentality, the limb will fall with you on it, and not the tree.

Oh, excuse me for being so picturesque, but metaphors are necessary sometimes.

MV's may have helped the mentality of the church, but the spirituality is quite lacking, it's the defining difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge.

(resting in peerfect peace knowing what the Word of God is, and what it ain't!)

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

Uh, you must have gotten that out of the niv, Samson didn't cut his own hair, Delilah did.

But Samson allowed it, since whenever he fibbed to Delilah about the source of his strength, she tried it out on him. He should've known she'd cut his hair.

If you're so educated as you attempt to indicate by your boasts, then why have you mispelled Nazerite?

I claim no formal education beyond a HS diploma & several vo-tech courses & Navy "A"-school.

Actually, the correct spelling is "Nazirite".Numbers 6:2, NIV-"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a **Nazirite**," This follows the Hebrew word, which is spelled "nazir" in our alphabet.

The KJV reads, "Nazarite". However, in some circles, "Nazerite" is acceptable.

Yeah, but there's a big difference between sirloin and chopped sirloin with soybean added, and the niv adds the soybean.

That means it has more "protein".

Funny, most of you accuse the NIV of leaving material out & you say it's added some. Nothing like consistency, eh?


My point reached it's destination, or you wouldn't have reacted, but then I don't have a "point/counter point" mentality. (picture that image having two points, if you need a hint.)

Well, I picture it as a male bovine-a point here, a point there, & a lot of bull in between.

Never "got away" from it, Simon. God's not limited to just the KJV and neither am I.

Sounds just like what Thomas might say, you're still waiting to see the wounds in His hands and put your hand into his side.

Now you're out in left field.

I don't limit the Holy One of Israel with my doubts,

Evidently you do, as you doubt that God has placed His word into any other English version but your fave.

I know where to go when I need help, God's Word/King James 1611.

Then let's see if it'll help you find any Scriptural support for the KJVO myth.

You have almost sawn the limb from the tree, but in your cartoon mentality, the limb will fall with you on it, and not the tree.

HAVE I?

Let's see some PROOF that justifies the KJVO myth. Let's see some Scriptural support. Let's see an explanation for all the English BVs being different from one another. Let's see a valid reason for rejecting all other BVs.

[b/Oh, excuse me for being so picturesque, but metaphors are necessary sometimes.[/b]

I reckon they are, when no real evidence for one's pet theories exists.

MV's may have helped the mentality of the church, but the spirituality is quite lacking, it's the defining difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge.

Proof, please?


(resting in peerfect peace knowing what the Word of God is, and what it ain't!)

Well, what ain't, and where's your proof??? Just saying, "it ain't the KJV, so it's wrong" ain't no PROOF.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB.

What do you do when the KJV disagrees with the Greek text from which it was translated? What do you do when the KJV says one thing and the Greek text from which it was translated says something different? </font>[/QUOTE]That's it, the King James doesn't. The idea it does only comes through the failure to define the word contextually, as outlined in another thread about the word "tempt".

 

[Precepts]

roby3, "Nazi-rite"?,

Maybe you should attempt a little fuhrer education.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB.

What do you do when the KJV disagrees with the Greek text from which it was translated? What do you do when the KJV says one thing and the Greek text from which it was translated says something different? </font>[/QUOTE]That's it, the King James doesn't. The idea it does only comes through the failure to define the word contextually, as outlined in another thread about the word "tempt". </font>[/QUOTE]If that's so, then please justify from either the context or a Greek ms the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4 in the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
roby3, "Nazi-rite"?,

Maybe you should attempt a little fuhrer education.

Sorry, Sir, but before you "sieg heil" me too many times, you might check to see if the Hebrew word "nazir" predates Adolf by a few years or not-along with the English derivative "nazirite". You might speak to a Jew about this.

Methinks you started a "fuehrer" before you studied the source for the assertion of the spelling or the facts behind it.

 

[Precepts]

If that's so, then please justify from either the context or a Greek ms the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4 in the KJV.

BAAL

1. An idol of the Phoenicians, god of the sun
The Israelites wickedly worshiped in the time of the judges
#Jud 2:10-23 1Sa 7:3,4

Er, since "Baal" is a false god and doesn't literally exist, and only in the "form/image" the KJ Translators are quite accurate in the clarity of the passage by the added italicized words. It was understood in the Koine Greek, but needs the clarification into English, but you don't like clarification do you? Probably not now anyway.

Only KJB people understand this, excepting for those who detract to mv, with attempting to fault the KJB, by making such insane insinuation.

Edited for grammatical clarification as to avoid mistaking the post, felt it was needed for mv users

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Er, since "Baal" is a false god and doesn't literally exist, and only in the "form/image" the KJ Translators are quite accurate in the clarity of the passage by the added italicized words. It was understood in the Koine Greek, but needs the clarification into English, but you don't like clarification do you? Probably not now anyway.

Ah, I see. You can add words to "the preserved word of God" as long as you're doing it for clarification purposes.

 

[Precepts]

see if the Hebrew word "nazir" predates Adolf by a few years or not-along with the English derivative "nazirite". You might speak to a Jew about this.

05139 ryzn naziyr naw-zeer’ or rzn nazir naw-zeer’

from 05144; TWOT-1340b; n m

AV-Nazarite 12, undressed 2, separate 2; 16

1) consecrated or devoted one, Nazarite
1a) consecrated one
1b) devotee, Nazarite
1c) untrimmed (vine)

Maybe you should try to use grammatical equivelence as to why the letter "a" is used.

BTW, quit trying to talk Old Hebrew when you post in English; King James Translators understood this and so do I.

If you wish, you might contact Bro. K. Daniel Fried @ HopeofIsrael.net.

Tell him Bro. Ricky at Landmark sent you.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB.

What do you do when the KJV disagrees with the Greek text from which it was translated? What do you do when the KJV says one thing and the Greek text from which it was translated says something different? </font>[/QUOTE]That's it, the King James doesn't. The idea it does only comes through the failure to define the word contextually, as outlined in another thread about the word "tempt". </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, there are many places where the KJV disagrees with its underlying Greek text. I've already cited two examples in earlier posts -- Mk. 1:10, where it renders the strong participle σχιζομενους as "open" rather than "torn open" or some such equivalent; and where it adds the italicized words "the image of" in Rom 11:4.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If that's so, then please justify from either the context or a Greek ms the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4 in the KJV.

BAAL

1. An idol of the Phoenicians, god of the sun
The Israelites wickedly worshiped in the time of the judges
#Jud 2:10-23 1Sa 7:3,4

Er, since "Baal" is a false god and doesn't literally exist, and only in the "form/image" the KJ Translators are quite accurate in the clarity of the passage by the added italicized words. It was understood in the Koine Greek, but needs the clarification into English....</font>[/QUOTE]Then why didn't the KJV translators add a similar "clarification" in 1 Kg. 19:18, the passage to which Rom. 11:4 alludes?

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, KJV)

The verse in First Kings makes perfect sense without any additional words -- as does the verse in Romans.

"But what sayth the answer of god to him agayne? I have reserved vnto me seven thousande men which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Rom. 11:4, Tyndale Bible)

"But what saith the answer of God to him? I have reserved unto my self seven thousand men, which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Rom. 11:4, Geneva Bible)

Both the Tyndale and Geneva Bible translators rendered Rom. 11:4 properly. The KJV "Bible correctors" added to the word of God.

 

[Precepts]

Ah, I see. You can add words to "the preserved word of God" as long as you're doing it for clarification purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's called translating, brainchild, or didn't they teach you to think?

The more those try to discredit the KJB by idiotic tendencies as transcribed in here the dumber you look.You embararss yourselves along with the worst of Greek students

 

[Precepts]

Actually, there are many places where the KJV disagrees with its underlying Greek text.

Statements like that prove your lack of study. Maybe you should use different sources than the perverted ones to come up with such lunacies.

 

[Precepts]

Both the Tyndale and Geneva Bible translators rendered Rom. 11:4 properly. The KJV "Bible correctors" added to the word of God.

Are you the guy I heard about that stands in front of mirrors and tries to tell himself he's really somebody with an education?

When the KJ Translators look at the manuscripts, it was the compilation of different groups that partook of the duty appointed and saw the meaning more clearly translated using the italicized words, to explain the Greek text.

The difference in O.T. was from Hebrew, not Greek, but still it does say the same EXACT thing, just translated from different languages.

What gets me is that you throw off on the KJB, then use the very same translations from Geneva and Tyndale saying exactly the same, with the same eloquence, submitting a "BIG" discrepancy when there is NONE!

I can see it coming, the all too common circular reasoning that only ends up in the same dizzy condition, laying on the ground in the same spot it started.

It's like picking boogers from your twin brother's nose saying they are yours, you are experienced at that, I can tell.