-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is your final authority?
- Thread starter KJVBibleThumper
- Start date
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
If you all will keep this up I can close this thread before I go to bed 
.
.--------------------------------------------------
We are not to compromise with error. It is like accepting a donut that is laced with arsenic. To the unsuspecting it is pleasing in appearance, and it tastes like a donut, smells like a donut, looks like a donut, but the poison is subtley hidden, and will bring that person to illness and ultimate death if one eats of it.
But you haven't presented any PROOF of error except GUESSWORK AND OPINION. Aren't you concerned that you're WRONG? i know I'M right by empirical evidence...while YOU'RE just HOPING you are. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!
--------------------------------------------------
Here is a great link that shows this error quite well in the NIV, to which is reflected in other mv's.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/harmon8.html
There is your evidence. You can choose to take it, or leave it. That is ultimately your own decision. But just because you choose not to see it, doesn't mean it hasn't been shown, nor proven. It only shows <edited by moderator>.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
[ August 18, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
We are not to compromise with error. It is like accepting a donut that is laced with arsenic. To the unsuspecting it is pleasing in appearance, and it tastes like a donut, smells like a donut, looks like a donut, but the poison is subtley hidden, and will bring that person to illness and ultimate death if one eats of it.
But you haven't presented any PROOF of error except GUESSWORK AND OPINION. Aren't you concerned that you're WRONG? i know I'M right by empirical evidence...while YOU'RE just HOPING you are. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!
--------------------------------------------------
Here is a great link that shows this error quite well in the NIV, to which is reflected in other mv's.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/harmon8.html
There is your evidence. You can choose to take it, or leave it. That is ultimately your own decision. But just because you choose not to see it, doesn't mean it hasn't been shown, nor proven. It only shows <edited by moderator>.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
[ August 18, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
--------------------------------------------------
These are more pronounced examples of the KJV translators bias toward romish doctrine and their subsequent violence towards believers who opposed them, particularly Anabaptists and dissenters.
--------------------------------------------------
Go to my thread about Westcott and Hort and read all the links. Then maybe you will understand the difference, and the seriousness of this issue, rather than focusing on irrelevant issues like this one, continually.
(Ephesian 6:12)
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
These are more pronounced examples of the KJV translators bias toward romish doctrine and their subsequent violence towards believers who opposed them, particularly Anabaptists and dissenters.
--------------------------------------------------
Go to my thread about Westcott and Hort and read all the links. Then maybe you will understand the difference, and the seriousness of this issue, rather than focusing on irrelevant issues like this one, continually.
(Ephesian 6:12)
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
michelle said "Here is a great link that shows this error quite well in the NIV"
No, that link shows how that author only takes select verses, uses his bias to spin them in the worst possible way (ignoring any and all explanation to the contrary), and repeats the same un-verified lies about other people that we are discussing on the other thread.
The page is full of false witness.
michelle said "You can choose to take it, or leave it."
I accept truth. Since this page is full of false witness, I'll leave it.
No, that link shows how that author only takes select verses, uses his bias to spin them in the worst possible way (ignoring any and all explanation to the contrary), and repeats the same un-verified lies about other people that we are discussing on the other thread.
The page is full of false witness.
michelle said "You can choose to take it, or leave it."
I accept truth. Since this page is full of false witness, I'll leave it.
--------------------------------------------------
You mean like the death that King Henry the 8th (founder of the CofE) King James, the Church of England and the High Council inflicted upon those who would not accept their work with their translation biases, who they had imprisoned, strangled, burned at the stake, had their noses split and ears cut off because they complained about the mistranslations of all the kings men (and “bishops”)?
--------------------------------------------------
I suggest you read about the whole history of that time, and all the reasons why this occured, rather than focusing it upon something it had nothing to do with.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
You mean like the death that King Henry the 8th (founder of the CofE) King James, the Church of England and the High Council inflicted upon those who would not accept their work with their translation biases, who they had imprisoned, strangled, burned at the stake, had their noses split and ears cut off because they complained about the mistranslations of all the kings men (and “bishops”)?
--------------------------------------------------
I suggest you read about the whole history of that time, and all the reasons why this occured, rather than focusing it upon something it had nothing to do with.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Please learn - if it doesn't fit michelle's point of view it is not important.
"If you understood you would understand."
"If you understood you would understand."
Again michelle, many at the time of the publication of the KJV had lists of their own showing the King that he and his bishops had compromised the Word of God, (the original language texts [The Traditional Text]).
No translation is flawless, some more, some less.
The KJV having a history of 200 years of correction, still with a few blemishes.
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
No, that link shows how that author only takes select verses, uses his bias to spin them in the worst possible way (ignoring any and all explanation to the contrary), and repeats the same un-verified lies about other people that we are discussing on the other thread.
The page is full of false witness.
--------------------------------------------------
And what is your explanation to all of those errors to the contrary? They haven't spun anything around. They presented it as it is.
What I gave you in those links is not false witness, but the truth. You are not using spiritual discernment.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
No, that link shows how that author only takes select verses, uses his bias to spin them in the worst possible way (ignoring any and all explanation to the contrary), and repeats the same un-verified lies about other people that we are discussing on the other thread.
The page is full of false witness.
--------------------------------------------------
And what is your explanation to all of those errors to the contrary? They haven't spun anything around. They presented it as it is.
What I gave you in those links is not false witness, but the truth. You are not using spiritual discernment.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
michelle said "And what is your explanation to all of those errors to the contrary? They haven't spun anything around. They presented it as it is."
Providing a full rebuttal to the spin, misinformation and false witness on that page would take more effort than I am prepared to provide at the moment.
michelle said "What I gave you in those links is not false witness, but the truth. You are not using spiritual discernment."
Another error.
Providing a full rebuttal to the spin, misinformation and false witness on that page would take more effort than I am prepared to provide at the moment.
michelle said "What I gave you in those links is not false witness, but the truth. You are not using spiritual discernment."
Another error.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Michelle,
Just because something is not a King James Version does not mean it is wrong, corrupted, perverted. It just means that it is different. And, since you admit that you have never read any of the modern versions, you have absolutely no grounds to even participate in any discussion outside of those that only discuss the KJV.
Everytime you post regarding any other version, you show your total ignorance of the subject. You also show your reliance on outside sources for your (very limited) knowledge. As they sources are of the likes of the 'apostles of the KJVO movement', most here ignore your comments.
The KJV is a great translation, Michelle. But it is as fallible as the men wrote translated is. So get over it.
In Christ,
Trotter
Just because something is not a King James Version does not mean it is wrong, corrupted, perverted. It just means that it is different. And, since you admit that you have never read any of the modern versions, you have absolutely no grounds to even participate in any discussion outside of those that only discuss the KJV.
Everytime you post regarding any other version, you show your total ignorance of the subject. You also show your reliance on outside sources for your (very limited) knowledge. As they sources are of the likes of the 'apostles of the KJVO movement', most here ignore your comments.
The KJV is a great translation, Michelle. But it is as fallible as the men wrote translated is. So get over it.
In Christ,
Trotter
So your threads are relevant and mine irrelevant. Who made you judge and jury michelle? This seems your favorite method of rebuttal. Issue the "irrelevant" label and/or question my understanding.
Violence against believers is now irrelevant.
John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
“continually”? This is your own technique michelle, day after day after day, but when fed your own medicine you complain.
Welcome to the club.
HankD
The article that michelle linked to said about Rom 14:10, "By changing "Christ" to "God" they deny that Jesus is God."
This is untrue. The NIV does not deny that Jesus is God in this verse, or any other. The author of this article apparently does not even understand the definition of simply English words like "deny".
The article says about John 9:35 "They change "Son of God" to "Son of Man", who gave them the right to call Jesus a liar?"
This is untrue. The NIV does not call Jesus a liar in this verse or any other.
The article says about several verses "NIV leaves out Jesus."
Why does the article not mention that the KJV "leaves out Jesus" in Acts 9:22, Acts 16:7, Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, Gal 5:24, Eph 3:6, Col 4:12, Jude 1:25, etc?
The article says about John 6:69 "Where did this name for God come from "One" - this is the New Age universal god - "the One""
Spin. It seems the author of the article is completely unaware of Psalm 71:22, Psalm 78:41, Isa 29:23, Isa 30:15, Isa 43:3, Isa 48:17, Isa 54:5, Isa 55:5, Isa 60:9, Jer 51:5, Hos 11:9, Hab 3:3, Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34.
Want more? I could go on and on and on. The page is full of spin, false witness, and deception. It is poison.
This is untrue. The NIV does not deny that Jesus is God in this verse, or any other. The author of this article apparently does not even understand the definition of simply English words like "deny".
The article says about John 9:35 "They change "Son of God" to "Son of Man", who gave them the right to call Jesus a liar?"
This is untrue. The NIV does not call Jesus a liar in this verse or any other.
The article says about several verses "NIV leaves out Jesus."
Why does the article not mention that the KJV "leaves out Jesus" in Acts 9:22, Acts 16:7, Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, Gal 5:24, Eph 3:6, Col 4:12, Jude 1:25, etc?
The article says about John 6:69 "Where did this name for God come from "One" - this is the New Age universal god - "the One""
Spin. It seems the author of the article is completely unaware of Psalm 71:22, Psalm 78:41, Isa 29:23, Isa 30:15, Isa 43:3, Isa 48:17, Isa 54:5, Isa 55:5, Isa 60:9, Jer 51:5, Hos 11:9, Hab 3:3, Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34.
Want more? I could go on and on and on. The page is full of spin, false witness, and deception. It is poison.
roby:The WORDS aren't the error; the error is in the interpretation certain people have made for them.
--------------------------------------------------
To which is what you and many here have done.
what's in your water supply?
I, and several others have PLAINLY shown you what the TRANSLATORS meant, from their own note! And YET you insist on this STUPID COURSE, in clear contradiction of the plain indication by the very men who made the bible you support! I'm really beginning to question your level of comprehension.
Many of you are not taking into the consideration, nor the command to rightly divide the word of truth.
There's nothing to divide here! It's a verse of a song composed by David in praise to God. It's ONE. If you divide it any further, you get a FRACTION instead of the WHOLE.
This is putting you in error of misinterpreting the passage, and particularily that verse, among many others we have debated.
In your present level of comprehension, I'm thankful you're not dispensing any medicine to my family. There's absolutely NO interpretation superior than the one made by the very TRANSLATORS of your fave BV.
You only put on narrowly focused glasses, rather than contacts to which give you the broader understanding of God's truth. We are not to focus solely upon one verse of scripture, but the whole councel of God.
That's EXACTLY what the AV translators did! The Hebrew here is 'shamar(keep)Yahweh (God)natsar(preserve)zuw(this, from this)dowr(generation)'owlam(forever or continuously)
To make sense in English, the translators had to add some pronouns. So, after 'shamar'(verb'keep')they added "them". And after 'natsar'(verb'preserve')they added "them". Feel free to check it out yourself, with your therapist at hand.
Then, they wrote a note explaining they could just as easily have supplied "him" or "every one of them" instead of just "them". But, for whatever nutty reasons you have, you simply refuse to acknowledge the actual words of the translators whose other work you so highly revere.
The attempts seem to be of the mv proponents, in my observation, that many are only interested in fighting and winning against a false and man-made label to which puts many in the position of claiming and believing the word of God has errors, even sadly at the expense of the truth.
No, it's the rejection of a brain-dead supposition that the AV translators wrote one thing while meaning entirely something else.
You've already proven to the readership ,<attacke edited by moderator> Maybe He'll raise your comprehension level while He's at it.
[ August 18, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
--------------------------------------------------
To which is what you and many here have done.
what's in your water supply?
I, and several others have PLAINLY shown you what the TRANSLATORS meant, from their own note! And YET you insist on this STUPID COURSE, in clear contradiction of the plain indication by the very men who made the bible you support! I'm really beginning to question your level of comprehension.
Many of you are not taking into the consideration, nor the command to rightly divide the word of truth.
There's nothing to divide here! It's a verse of a song composed by David in praise to God. It's ONE. If you divide it any further, you get a FRACTION instead of the WHOLE.
This is putting you in error of misinterpreting the passage, and particularily that verse, among many others we have debated.
In your present level of comprehension, I'm thankful you're not dispensing any medicine to my family. There's absolutely NO interpretation superior than the one made by the very TRANSLATORS of your fave BV.
You only put on narrowly focused glasses, rather than contacts to which give you the broader understanding of God's truth. We are not to focus solely upon one verse of scripture, but the whole councel of God.
That's EXACTLY what the AV translators did! The Hebrew here is 'shamar(keep)Yahweh (God)natsar(preserve)zuw(this, from this)dowr(generation)'owlam(forever or continuously)
To make sense in English, the translators had to add some pronouns. So, after 'shamar'(verb'keep')they added "them". And after 'natsar'(verb'preserve')they added "them". Feel free to check it out yourself, with your therapist at hand.
Then, they wrote a note explaining they could just as easily have supplied "him" or "every one of them" instead of just "them". But, for whatever nutty reasons you have, you simply refuse to acknowledge the actual words of the translators whose other work you so highly revere.
The attempts seem to be of the mv proponents, in my observation, that many are only interested in fighting and winning against a false and man-made label to which puts many in the position of claiming and believing the word of God has errors, even sadly at the expense of the truth.
No, it's the rejection of a brain-dead supposition that the AV translators wrote one thing while meaning entirely something else.
You've already proven to the readership ,<attacke edited by moderator> Maybe He'll raise your comprehension level while He's at it.
[ August 18, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
roby:Furthermore, He has preserved the righteous from the punishment He has decreed for the sinner...the second death.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:And how has God done this, and how is it that we know and can know?
From your own fave BV:
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Believing these Scriptures as written, without trying to make up some cockamamie interpretation of either the Greek, Hebrew, or English, we see everyone will die, except those Christians alive when the translation(rapture) occurs. Jesus plainly tells us what the second death is...the lake of fire. And since we see everyone will die, what punishment is there in the first death, shared by righteous and sinner alike? The punishment is the SECOND death...hell.
How do I knos those Scriptures are true? BY FAITH. And what is my basis for that faith? By believing the UNseen by the SEEN...not BLIND faith. And what is the SEEN? CREATION! If we keep dividing matter, rays, or energy waves, we eventually come to quarks, which, far as we know,is the smallest unit of physical existence. There are six "flavors"(kinds)of quark, and there's nothing known WE can do to change them. This calls for a CREATOR.
And then there's the 1.000 batting average for SCRIPTURAL prophecy; two UNMISTAKABLE examples are the rapid advances in travel & knowledge, & the rise of Judah from a motley collection of collective farms & villages to a military superpower in just fifty years.
Finally, there's physical evidence, and the records kept by people who didn't know of God in their early history. The remains of Gomorrah have been found, from an ancient Egyptian trader's map. And indeed it bears evidence that its stone buildings were MELTED. The Maya recorded that the sun didn't rise on time for almost half a day, C.1400BC(Joshua 10)& the Pawnee Indians have a legend that the sun rose a little, then retreated for several hours, 700s BC(2 Kings 20)
So you see, my faith in the unseen is NOT based upon some old wives' tale, guesswork, or superstition, but on REAL evidence.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:And how has God done this, and how is it that we know and can know?
From your own fave BV:
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Believing these Scriptures as written, without trying to make up some cockamamie interpretation of either the Greek, Hebrew, or English, we see everyone will die, except those Christians alive when the translation(rapture) occurs. Jesus plainly tells us what the second death is...the lake of fire. And since we see everyone will die, what punishment is there in the first death, shared by righteous and sinner alike? The punishment is the SECOND death...hell.
How do I knos those Scriptures are true? BY FAITH. And what is my basis for that faith? By believing the UNseen by the SEEN...not BLIND faith. And what is the SEEN? CREATION! If we keep dividing matter, rays, or energy waves, we eventually come to quarks, which, far as we know,is the smallest unit of physical existence. There are six "flavors"(kinds)of quark, and there's nothing known WE can do to change them. This calls for a CREATOR.
And then there's the 1.000 batting average for SCRIPTURAL prophecy; two UNMISTAKABLE examples are the rapid advances in travel & knowledge, & the rise of Judah from a motley collection of collective farms & villages to a military superpower in just fifty years.
Finally, there's physical evidence, and the records kept by people who didn't know of God in their early history. The remains of Gomorrah have been found, from an ancient Egyptian trader's map. And indeed it bears evidence that its stone buildings were MELTED. The Maya recorded that the sun didn't rise on time for almost half a day, C.1400BC(Joshua 10)& the Pawnee Indians have a legend that the sun rose a little, then retreated for several hours, 700s BC(2 Kings 20)
So you see, my faith in the unseen is NOT based upon some old wives' tale, guesswork, or superstition, but on REAL evidence.
DeclareHim
New Member
I trust that he will as well..He will find that the "differences" most harumpf about are GENUINE updating,and nothing but Alexandrian propaganda that would make Goebbels proud.The KJB has not been altered in respect to it's text. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh please check this out.
"and he went into the citie." Ruth 3:15 1611 KIV
"and she went into the city." Ruth 3:15 1769 KIV
"in the temple" 2 Kings 11:10 1611 KIV
"in the temple of the Lord" 2 Kings 11:10 1611 KIV
"God" Isaiah 14:13 KIV 1611
"the LORD" Isaiah 14:13 KIV 1769
So which of those choices are right. And don't show ignorance by saying both. According to you KIVO there's only 1 way to translate something correctly. So which is it. </font>[/QUOTE]Not 1 that's right not 1 KJVO has answered this post. Which is correct? 1611 or 1769 they can't both be right. If one of you guys don't answer this post by Thursday Morning would one of the mods shut this argument down and declare us right. Thanks.
DeclareHim
New Member
Then show us Scripture supporting Alexandria,Egypt as the "origen" of Scripture... </font>[/QUOTE]Ok I'll make you a deal you answer my question of which choice the 1611 or 1769 is correct and I'll bow to your level and answer you.
Michelle:Why is it that you continually refer to the footnotes, maps, and references as the word of God? Can you not tell what is or is not the word of God? If not, why? John 16,17
Without PROOF, anyone could write anything and say it's God's word. And Scripture says, "test the spirits". Now, how do we do that with Bible translations? By checking them against their sources. These sources are the oldest-known writings of Scripture still in existence.
As for the non-textual things found in the AV 1611, they were placed there by the very men who wrote the TEXT. And their marginal notes pertain DIRECTLY to the text, often indicating other valid choices they COULD have for the words of the text.
In your dishonesty, we see you uphold ONLY that part of the AV translators'work that fits your KJVOism, while rejecting that which DOESN'T suppoer it, such as the note for Ps.12:7 we've been discussing.
Without PROOF, anyone could write anything and say it's God's word. And Scripture says, "test the spirits". Now, how do we do that with Bible translations? By checking them against their sources. These sources are the oldest-known writings of Scripture still in existence.
As for the non-textual things found in the AV 1611, they were placed there by the very men who wrote the TEXT. And their marginal notes pertain DIRECTLY to the text, often indicating other valid choices they COULD have for the words of the text.
In your dishonesty, we see you uphold ONLY that part of the AV translators'work that fits your KJVOism, while rejecting that which DOESN'T suppoer it, such as the note for Ps.12:7 we've been discussing.
Michelle: have answered this in 3 different posts already to you since that statement and regarding this, and I am not going to do it again. Go search for the answer. I am not going to continue responding/repeating to this again.
You just can't be honest, can you? Nowhere have you pasted any post of mine where I've said I was "autograph Only". Now, either admit you goofed, or continue as a LIAR.
You just can't be honest, can you? Nowhere have you pasted any post of mine where I've said I was "autograph Only". Now, either admit you goofed, or continue as a LIAR.