The Problem with KJV ONLY Advocates

[Inspector Javert]

Thank you for your advice agedman, and I mean that, but, I'll throw my opinion in too

I have no "skin" in this thread

I don't believe that. I'm sorry, I don't.

Far better that you prove you point as a gentleman

I'd prefer that, God knows........

But, "Gentlemen" are not listened to.

They don't change the world....
That's my opinion..........

As of (literally) right now my wife just brought in some Samuel Adams Boston Lager (that's a good wife if ever you met one)....

Know what I think?
I think it was Samuel Adams, (not John) who made the REAL revolution happen.........
I get that I can be harsh.....so I tend to TRY to stay away from KJVO threads......it's just that anti-KJVO's are such, well stupid abusive prigs...................so I lose my temper a little (they're also stupid too).

I appreciate your advice Aged-man! :wavey:

 

[jonathan.borland]

Is perfectly correct:........you fail to understand that the word "Easter" did not mean 400-years ago what it means now....
You don't understand that distinction. It's beyond your ken.

You obviously read neither Greek nor Hebrew....you know nothing about what Ex. 20:13 says in the "original"......nothing...
I read Hebrew, Roby, and you don't...the verb "kill"............is a quintessential verb used to teach many verb forms..........you don't know what you are talking about. Students of Hebrew are perpetually carping why they have to memorize:
"I kill"
"We kill"
"We will kill"
"They killed"
"He will kill"....

You know nothing about this...nothing....

"KILL"...is actually a commonly used verb in Hebrew to explain verbal forms....students complain about repeating it all day.

The Brilliant "Robycop" obviously knows NOTHING about Hebrew verb forms...that much, I am assured of..
Let's reserve translational issues to people who can read original languages, shall we Mr. Roby?

From two different languages, that I know you personally cannot read....

You know not one word of either of them....and it's obvious to anyone who does.

Yeah, of course....'cause' you read it...and the KJV translators didn't know as much as you do.....your arrogance is astounding.

Yes.....
It's the work of men who actually understood Greek and Hebrew...I know enough about BOTH languages to confidently claim that you know absolutely NOTHING...........NOTHING about either one.... Nothing.

:sleeping_2:

You actually looked up Ex 20:13 in the Hebrew and saw the verb קטל? Good Lord your Hebrew sucks!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Or perhaps you were drunk with your Jack Daniels? Or both your Hebrew sucks and you were drunk? Anyway...

Robycop is right. "Kill" is a poor translation of the word רצח in Ex 20:13 which means more properly to murder, slay with premeditation, etc.

 

[Yeshua1]

Or perhaps you were drunk with your Jack Daniels? Or both your Hebrew sucks and you were drunk? Anyway...

Robycop is right. "Kill" is a poor translation of the word רצח in Ex 20:13 which means more properly to murder, slay with premeditation, etc.

IF he wa to look that word up in any Hebrew lexicon/word dictionary, would see that the emphasis was placed upon the intent of the action, as God was NOTagainst killing that had to be done, such as when he ordered the isrelaites to wipr out pagan central in land, but that God against murder, against wanton killing for no valid reason!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You actually looked up Ex 20:13 in the Hebrew and saw the verb קטל? Good Lord your Hebrew sucks!

I find offense at your flippant use of the Lord's Name.

His name is holy and ought to be respected more than that.

 

[jonathan.borland]

You're right, Jordan. Thanks for the rebuke. The tongue has proven difficult to tame at times. Javert and I are old pals and jest around with each other, but I confess that was over the top. Won't happen again.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You're right, Jordan. Thanks for the rebuke. The tongue has proven difficult to tame at times. Javert and I are old pals and jest around with each other, but I confess that was over the top. Won't happen again.

Thank you. I do appreciate that.

 

[robycop3]

I find offense at your flippant use of the Lord's Name.

His name is holy and ought to be respected more than that.

Actually, "the Lord" is one of His TITLES, not His name, which He said is "I AM", ot "Yahweh".

But usually, "the Lord" without a name attached is in reference to God, and should be respected thusly.

 

[robycop3]

Not a "goof" in the KJV...and I can reasonably disprove you and "Logos" all day on it...

I can dominate that argument all day.

Rick is wrong on that, and so are you...

Start a new thread, and we can try again...
"Easter" is antiquated..........yes.......
"wrong".......no.

Not "wrong".........antiquated.

No, you lose right off the bat cuz EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote the letter which became the Book of Acts.

In that day, 'pascha', which is a Greek transliteration of the hebrew word 'p'sach', the word GOD used for passover, meant only PASSOVER. 'pascha' is the same word JESUS is quoted as using for passover. So, unless you believe JESUS observed Easter...

 

[robycop3]

Is perfectly correct:........you fail to understand that the word "Easter" did not mean 400-years ago what it means now....
You don't understand that distinction. It's beyond your ken.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

It's PASCHA whose meaning has changed. And you've forgotten that the older Geneva Bible reads "the passeoeur" in Acts 12:4.

You've obviously not read the AV 1611 too closely, or you'da known it includes an "Easter-Finder" in its extratextual material, and the translators considered Easter and Christmas as the two holiest days of the year. Clearly, the AV menknew what easter was.

Your argument is phony as a Chevy Thunderbird.

You obviously read neither Greek nor Hebrew....you know nothing about what Ex. 20:13 says in the "original"......nothing...
I read Hebrew, Roby, and you don't...the verb "kill"............is a quintessential verb used to teach many verb forms..........you don't know what you are talking about. Students of Hebrew are perpetually carping why they have to memorize:
"I kill"
"We kill"
"We will kill"
"They killed"
"He will kill"....

You know nothing about this...nothing....

But I read English, apparently a lot better than YOU, and a lot better than the wing nuts who show up at a prison where an execution is taking place, holding up signs reading "Thou shalt not KILL".

"KILL"...is actually a commonly used verb in Hebrew to explain verbal forms....students complain about repeating it all day.

Don't be silly-"Kill" is an "English word.

The Brilliant "Robycop" obviously knows NOTHING about Hebrew verb forms...that much, I am assured of..
Let's reserve translational issues to people who can read original languages, shall we Mr. Roby?

From two different languages, that I know you personally cannot read....

But again, I'm apparently 'WAY aheada YOU in English.

You know not one word of either of them....and it's obvious to anyone who does.

Yeah, of course....'cause' you read it...and the KJV translators didn't know as much as you do.....your arrogance is astounding.

Yes.....
It's the work of men who actually understood Greek and Hebrew...I know enough about BOTH languages to confidently claim that you know absolutely NOTHING...........NOTHING about either one.... Nothing.

:sleeping_2:

But in English, I know the difference in KILL and MURDER, which seemsta be giving you some trouble. If you're so good at hebrew, how come you can't see the difference in the Hebrew terms that every Hebrew-reading rabbi I've ever spoken to easily sees?

You're biased and blinded by your KJVO myth.

And I know better than to believe anything as obviously Satanic and FALSE as the man-made KJVO myth, derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by two dishonest authors.

 

[robycop3]

Inspector Javert:

Watch how "Dr." Bob will equivocate between the likes of Ruckman and Hyles and subsequently accuse Hyles of believing as Ruckman does....
Here goes----->
Quote:
(Ruckman that the KJV corrects the Greek; Hyles that one must use the KJV or not even be truly saved)
Doubt Hyles ever said any such thing.....

IF HE DID....I STAND CORRECTED...

About Hyles? Here ya go:

I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible.

{Jack Hyles, Enemies of Soul Winning (Hammond, IN: Hyles-Anderson Publishers, 1993), p. 47.}

So, U stand corrected.

 

[robycop3]

Inspector Javert:

Un-educated people fall for the fallacy of Origin or the "Genetic Fallacy"....
You appear to fall for that.
But, since, I don't claim my self to be "Dr.-anything" (be it Bob, Dick, or harry)...I haven't fallen for a simple genetic fallacy.
You appear to have done so.
How sad for you.............

I posted the MAN-MADE origin of the current KJVO myth in a previous thread. I can post it for you again, if you wish, if you believe you can prove one word of it wrong.

And I betcha can't provide one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO, either, a fact which, in & of itself makes it false.

 

[Logos1560]

King James onlyism is based on God's promise to preserve his word.

KJV-only advocates have not presented any consistent view of the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages that actually would properly lead to KJV-onlyism.

I believe in the preservation of the Scriptures and believe that God has been faithful to keep all His promises.

Accepting all that the Scriptures state about themselves does not lead me and many other believers to a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

 

[Logos1560]

You believe that God wants us to have to wonder in the dark and hop from one ever changing translation to the next ever changing translation. What confusion! God is not the author of confusion! What division all these translations have caused among Christians!

You continue your improper tactic of misrepresentation and distortion of what believers in the Scriptures [who merely disagree with KJV-only opinions] actually state and believe.

Would a consistent application of your own statements assert that God was not the author of the ever changing English renderings in the varying English Bibles printed from 1526 until 1612?

There are the same type difference between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV as you would find between the KJV and some present English Bibles, especially the NKJV.

Are you suggesting that God is not the author of all the hundreds and even thousands of differences in hundreds of varying editions of the KJV printed from 1611 until today?

What division has KJV-onlyism caused among believers today

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

double post

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

No, you lose right off the bat cuz EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote the letter which became the Book of Acts.

In that day, 'pascha', which is a Greek transliteration of the hebrew word 'p'sach', the word GOD used for passover, meant only PASSOVER. 'pascha' is the same word JESUS is quoted as using for passover. So, unless you believe JESUS observed Easter...

There was a Christian Pascha celebration that came to be identified today as Easter.

If you to go English to Greek translator and put in Easter, it will give you Pascha.

The Reason the King James Translators put the word Pascha is because the word Easter is used to denote the Christian Celebration of Pascha.Which is what I believe Herod was waiting for to pass.in Acts 12:4


Webster's 1828 dictionary Easter - A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.


There is evidence that Early Christians celebrated a Christian Paschal celebration.

This makes sense considering most of the early church were Jews who were used to celebrating Passover every year.. it's really not a stretch of imagination to think that they observed a Christian Pascha which we now would call Easter.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ten page limit reached