Replace words

yawn

Another hit-and-run thread, askjo?

 

Again, i boycott all topics in which MVs
are quoted without specifying which MV is
being talked about. Again, i boycott all
topics in which MVs are quoted without sutiable
documentation as to where the anti-MV bias
came from. This poster does NOT have an MV
to quote from. How can he dis MVs he doesn't
have?

 

NKJV
RSV
ASV
WEB
YLT
HCSB

MKJV
RSV
CEV
ESV
ASV
WEB
BBE
YLT
NASB
NIV

**These lists may not be all-inclusive.

 

The 1833 Webster's has "ye shall be as gods"
at Genesis 3:5. Perhaps the present-day
Revised Webster's is different.


The 1535 Coverdale's Bible, one of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision,
was "the fourth is like an angel to look upon"
at Daniel 3:25.

 

Askjo: //Interestingly the satan used a word, "gods" on Genesis 3:5 (KJV). These translators for modern versions used a word, "gods" on Daniel 3:25 (Modern versions). How deceitful! //

FRom KJV1769 with Strong's,
the "gods" in Genesis 3:5 is:

H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

The "God" in Daniel 3:25 is:

H426
אלהּ
'ĕlâhh
el-aw'
(Chaldee); corresponding to H433; God: - God, god.


I think it strange that a Pagan King could know Christian
Doctrine 700 years before it was specified in the
New Testament. But hey, different strokes for different folks

 

Pr 16:10 ¶ A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.
Pr 21:1 ¶ The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Ec 8:2 I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God.
Ec 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

 

G2G,

That most be the most amazing argument use here - because King James authorised the Bible that makes it the Word of God. That must mean that any nation which does not have a kingly authorised version has no Bible? What are American supposed to do - we have no king?

I will be interested to see your response if King Charles one day does the same.

 

"Elohim is the Hebrew word that is plural ("im" is the "s" in Hebrew). But it is used of the ONE God (ours) who is 3-in-one.
So when it says "you shall be as Elohim", it is up to the translator to say 'THE GOD' or 'gods' "
"
This why the newest Dutch translation (Authorized by the local monarch by the way) has a footnote to cover both possible translations.

 

Let's see, so you're saying a lost pagan can identify a Christophany? Wow, even Joshua couldn't do that!

 

That's exactly what I'm saying:

Joh 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Caiaphas was an unbelieving,reprobate all around rotten,wicked,nasty man. Know wuddle mean, Spoudazo!!!

You guys are just sore because my absolute authority is the KJB and not you. I know, which one, bla bla bla.

Pr 16:10 ¶ A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.
Pr 21:1 ¶ The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Ec 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

 

Well, which one?

 

Yeah, especially seeing that "new King James 1769 and later" take out "of God" in 1 John 5:12 because they're from "corrupt Greek manuscripts" (sarcasm of course).

You cannot be consistent in your stand and not identify which of these is true.

If *one* word in the KJV is different than another KJV, which one is God's inerrant Word?

And bringing some verses out of context from Prov. 21 or making a false parralel (like Gipp does) of Caiaphas doesn't prove your point or points either regarding Daniel or would-be inspiration of a "17 century Anglican translation."

But that's enough for now, my lunch break is over, back to work

 

Askjo, you're simply ignoring reality. Nebuchadnezzar could NOT have known who the Son of God is; shoot, he didn't even know who GOD was at that time. Remember, that whole series of events came about because the three Jews refused to worship Neb's IDOL. Does that sound like something a believer in the REAL GOD would do? And like all other faithful Jews, those three Jews, and Daniel, were looking for the Messiah, but they didn't know who He was, so they couldn't possibly have told Neb who He was because they themselves didn't know.

 

Askjo: Nebuchadnezzar knew that Daniel has his the true God during Nebuchadnezzar was a idolater.

Bah! Humbug!

Neb was conducting a PAGAN RITE to the idol he'd made when the events of Daniel 3 occurred. That FACT FROM SCRIPTURE shoots down any man-made theories about insisting that the KJV's rendering of v.25 is correct. Neb knew ONLY that a supernatural being was in the furnace with the 3 Jews. He had NO IDEA who He was.