Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

[robycop3]

Michelle:What Jesus read, and what Isaiah reads, is the same thing. It is not different, except for a few word changes anyway.

How many words have to be changed to make it different? One? Ten? More?


The point is in this case, is that you do not know two things. First, you do not know what the scriptures were written in. You assume they were another version in Greek. There is no where in scriptures to remotely indicate that Jesus would be reading from anything other than the Hebrew.

Then, in that case, our point is made. Assuming Isaiah wrote in Hebrew, and Jesus was reading from a Hebrew-language scroll, you're saying that Jesus was reading from a second Hebrew version, giving the KJVOs less excuse to try to explain away the wording differences.

Secondly, you do not know what language he was speaking to the congregation in. Do ya? It is again, an assumption. You are assuming Jesus was reading directly from a greek version of the Hebrew, with absolutely no proof whatsoever to indicate such a thing. Secondly, you do not know absolutly that he was speaking Aramaic or greek as he read the Hebrew scripture.

What he DOES know is that what He read aloud does NOT match what is written in the copy of Isaiah translated into the English of the KJV OT. I doubt that the excuse of language differences covers the differences between Luke 4 & Isaiah 42 & 61.

 

[robycop3]

Precepts:But you still can't understand the meaning of "place" can you? I gave you the definition from the Greek lexicon, the Merriam Webster Dictionary(snipped)

Precepts, you might save yourself a lot of spin invention and typing if you could prove to us that Jesus read aloud, during the events described in Luke 4:16-21 from any other place in the scroll of Isaiah handed to Him, besides what appears as Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 61:1-3 in the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

If the apocrypha was still included in the KJV, I might agree with ya, but it is NOT and it was taken OUT. Hope ya now understand.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

So the currently-used KJVs are REVISIONS, right?

 

[robycop3]

Will, are you so far gone as to actually believe TENO?

Have you actually investigated where the Apostles got some of their quotes? let's give an example: Hebrews 10:5, KJV- ?Sacrifice and offering thou hast not desired, but a body thou hast prepared for me?6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure."" This is supposedly a quote from Ps.40:6. However, here's Ps. 40:6 as it's written in the KJV- "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired; mine ears Thou hast opened.

Now, does the Hebrews passage match the Masoretic text or the Septuagint?

You might check the veracity of Teno's stuff before you quote him. He's often been found to be three fries short of a Happy Meal before.

 

[Phillip]

Now I fully understand the meaning of:
"Discussing Religion and Politics".

This is quite an interesting discussion, but also an interesting study in "beliefs" and how people (all of us) can justify what we see to fit our belief system.

I have a pastor who jumps all over the Bible (it didn't start happening until he obtained a computer with Bible searching software haha), but it is obvious, every single time he goes to a different scripture, even if it is only two verses away from the last. I realize that there were no verses in Jesus' scroll, but I think the King James is very, very clear how and what He read. REGARDLESS, the KJV language differs from its very own OT. You can splice words together any way you want to, but there is no "coherent" combination of scriptures that could result in Luke chapter four unless Jesus were to skip from word to word and I don't think that he would do that because it would give us an optional way of reading His Word to make it say what we want it to say. Remember, Jesus wants us to be like HIM. Therefore, I don't think he would jump from word to word, thus teaching us it is okay to do the same thing, otherwise we could come up with any doctrine we wanted with the Bible. Just a thought.

I don't think this issue will be settled to the satisfaction of the KJVO only crowd. Except, in their minds, we are wrong, they are right---by faith. I just don't understand where they get the faith in something that is not Biblical--well, in their mind, I guess it is.

Since it is difficult to get answers (and I must thank Precepts for answering most of my questions in good detail on another discussion. He was not afraid to answer, even the tough questions and although we don't agree in many areas, I feel that he has been very fair with me.) You can read my questions and his answers in "Questions for KJVOs"

One question I did not ask before, but I am curious about:
I would like to hear from the KJVO crowd how it is possible to translate a Bible into Chinese, today, for example? Do I translate it directly from the KJV and if I do will it be "as" inspired as the KJV?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:

This is not the same thing that is being done with the modern versions that is being brought out. There is a major difference between the two and THIS is what we are trying to relay.

Sorry Michelle but it is the same thing. Faithful MV's (especially the formal equivalency ones) say the same thing as the KJV with different words.

It is one thing to change a word from one language to another language, but changing a word from the same language to another word with a similar meaning in the same language can cause problems.

If you will look closely at Luke 4:18 vs Isaiah 61:1, the wording is different even if you don't consider whole phrases. No problem unless you are looking to make one up. Same thing with the various word choices of faithful Bible versions... there is no problem until someone desires to make one up.

It waters down the intensity of the origional word used.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence. First, the KJV does not contain the "original" words... not even in English. It primarily borrowed phrasing from earlier translations.

Second, you assume without evidence that the KJV word is the most accurate and therefore any change results in a watering down of the intensity. This is actually demonstrably false. There are places where MV's use words that are more intense and accurate.

But this is not the major problem many have with the modern versions, and that is of delieberately changing the words that affect the meaning of the context (such as deceived, and morning star, etc.).

They aren't changing anything Michelle. They are translating. Some MV's used the KJV and other earlier versions for guidance but the authority goes back to the original language text. The word translated "deceived" in the NASB is likewise translated "deceived" many times in the KJV. The better question to ask is why the KJV was inconsistent in translating the word God Himself inspired. The "morning star" translation requires some explanation but if you look at the arguments presented on this use on the BB, there is no need for you to consider this a "major problem."

Now if the word used fits the context, it really isn't a concern. However when complete verses, and phrases are omitted out of the text, THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. This is what the problems are, and it does not seem to bother you all one bit, that these things have been done to God's holy and pure word of truth.

That is because we don't use double standards. We use the same logic to explain the apparent problems in MV's as is used by YOU and US to explain apparent problems in the KJV. If you were biblically consistent in your thinking, these "problems" wouldn't be major problems for you either.

One of the amazing things I have noted over the past couple of years here is that KJVO's won't open their eyes to the purpose of the examples we give from the KJV. I don't think that the KJV has unexplainable problems. What I want you all to do is to apply the same understanding of apparent problems in MV's (or between the versions) as you do to the KJV.

This is when you start refering back to the origional greek, and act like we are stupid and don't know what the word of God says, and has said for the past 400 years and longer.

God inspired the Bible in languages of His choosing through men of His choosing. You don't have to like it... but that makes the writings of those men and the languages they wrote in authoritative per God Himself.

we find that they do not say the same things anymore.

I have been here for a few years now... and no KJVO has ever come close to proving that MV's and the KJV do not say the same things. That is simply untrue. They teach the same doctrines and reveal the same God and Savior.

I just pray that someday you will all come to understand this.

I would suggest my prayer to you. I don't pray that God will show you the truth. Rather, I pray that He will show me the truth if I am wrong and you all the truth if you are wrong. I am not opposed to changing my view at all if I am wrong... but there has to be a basis for this "faith". None of you have shown it from either scripture or history.

 

[HankD]

If the apocrypha was still included in the KJV, I might agree with ya, but it is NOT and it was taken OUT. Hope ya now understand.

First of all the KJV CAN still be purchased with the Apocrypha included. There are modern versions which include it and OBTW one can buy a First Edition AV for approximately $200,000.00

Notwithstanding then would you be willing to say that the 1611 First Edition (and any other KJV or any other version which includes the Apocrypha) is not the "pure" Word of God?

HankD

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Precepts:But you still can't understand the meaning of "place" can you? I gave you the definition from the Greek lexicon, the Merriam Webster Dictionary(snipped)

Precepts, you might save yourself a lot of spin invention and typing if you could prove to us that Jesus read aloud, during the events described in Luke 4:16-21 from any other place in the scroll of Isaiah handed to Him, besides what appears as Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 61:1-3 in the KJV.

Wow! Cranston is anti-KJVO and he now admits Jesus reasd from Isaih 61 and 42! Hey! It would do yall good to pat attention to Cranston here! try Isaiah 49 too.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Precepts:But you still can't understand the meaning of "place" can you? I gave you the definition from the Greek lexicon, the Merriam Webster Dictionary(snipped)

Precepts, you might save yourself a lot of spin invention and typing if you could prove to us that Jesus read aloud, during the events described in Luke 4:16-21 from any other place in the scroll of Isaiah handed to Him, besides what appears as Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 61:1-3 in the KJV.

Wow! Cranston is anti-KJVO and he now admits Jesus reasd from Isaih 61 and 42! Hey! It would do yall good to pat attention to Cranston here! try Isaiah 49 too. </font>[/QUOTE]Roby, Haven't ya figured it out yet? The Anglican Translators were infallible, and we as Baptist just better accept their English rendering, no matter what!

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Dr. Bob posts: "Why WON'T people who proclaim the verbal inspiration of each word as EXACTLY what God was saying NOT want to accept it here? It does no harm to doctrine to just say this is what the WORD of God says.
In every translation it says the same thing. I am befuddled over this change in heart by all the "only" crowd who elsewhere have CHAMPIONED the verbal inspiration . . ."

Bob, you Christians with no inerrant Holy Bible who promote mutliple conflicting versions are perhaps failing to understand how God "quotes" Himself. Instead of believing the Lord Jesus or even Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is modifying and expanding the Hebrew passage of Isaiah 61, you guys now have us supposing Christ was literally reading from an unknown version in an undefined language. It apparently was not the Hebrew masoretic text and it doesn't match the LXX, so it remains a mystery exactly what He was "reading from". This is Archy's line of reasoning.

Here is my take on it as a believer in the God preserved text of the King James Holy Bible.


There are many such examples in the gospels where God or Christ Himself refers to passages in the Old Testament and give us an explanation of the sense of the passage, rather than a literal quote.

For example, in Matthew 12:17-21 we read: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

The "quote" in Isaiah 42:1-4 is a quite different, but we can see the same general sense and expanded meaning given to us in Matthew's gospel.

Isaiah 42:1-2 says: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

Yet if we were to compare the Septuagint reading, we find that it gives a very different meaning than the one found in either the New Testament or the Hebrew text of Isaiah 42.

In the LXX version we read: "Jacob is my servant, I will help him. Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; ...nor shall his voice be heard without....He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged..."

It should be obvious that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is not quoting some LXX version. Rather, he is restating the same truths found in the Hebrew text by placing the same ideas in different terms. God has the right to do this, because He is refering to what He Himself has inspired. We, on the other hand, do not have the right to alter God's words or thoughts.

If I were to say to my young son: "I don't want you to play with that John Baker kid anymore. He is too rough and hurts other kids", then several days later I saw my son again with this boy and I now tell him: "Didn't I tell you not to hang around with Johnny because he is a bully?", would it be fair to say I hadn't told him that before? And this is just a human example. How much more can God vary His own specific words according to His design and purpose?

Here are a few more examples of the Holy Ghost expanding, explaining, amplifying, and applying His words as the occasion requires.

Luke 7:27 "This is he of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before THEE." Yet when we look at Malachi 3:1 the text says: "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before ME." The LXX reads differently with: "and he SHALL SURVEY THE way before MY FACE." (kai epiblepsetai odon pro proswpou mou).

An interesting case is cited by our Lord in Luke 19:46 where He says: "It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves." At first glance this would seem to be a single Scripture taken from the Old Testament, yet in fact the first part is a revised reference to Isaiah 56:7 where God says: "for mine house SHALL BE CALLED an house of prayer for all people", and the second is a revised application from Jeremiah 7:11 where the prophet asks: "Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?". Yet Christ combines two different quotes from two different books into a new saying and says "It is written".

There are many more like this, but one more should suffice to see that God can revise His "quotes" anyway He wants to. In John 12:39-41 the apostle, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, writes: "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias SAID again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart: that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. THESE THINGS SAID ESAIAS when he saw his glory, and spake of him."

Yet when we look at the passage in Isaiah 6:9-10 we read God telling Isaiah: "Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not: and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

The "quote" of what Isaiah "said" is quite different. Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.


Will Kinney

 

[Jim Ward]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Why WON'T people who proclaim the verbal inspiration of each word as EXACTLY what God was saying NOT want to accept it here? It does no harm to doctrine to just say this is what the WORD of God says.

In every translation it says the same thing. I am befuddled over this change in heart by all the "only" crowd who elsewhere have CHAMPIONED the verbal inspiration . . .

The facts show Dr. Bob to be both right and wrong when he says "In every translation it says the same thing", the two example below show where he is wrong, though in the 2nd, there could be a strong case made for him being correct, except for how the highlighted section is worded.


Luke 2:22 When the time came for Mary's purification offering at the Temple, as required by the laws of Moses after the birth of a child, his parents took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord;


-- New American Standard
Luke 2:22 And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord


-- Simple English
Luke 2:22 The time came for Mary and the baby to be made pure, according to the law of Moses. Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to Jerusalem, so that they could present him to the Lord .


-- King James
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-- Revised Standard
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.

Will Kinney

This is so thin
one can read a newspaper through a
gallon jug of it. I think the translators
knew of Luke 4:18 knew of Isaiah 61:1.
Yet they translated them different.
Why? Because the understood that the
exact wording is NOT important but the
meaning that God intended by those words.
I know the translators of Luke 4:18
knew of Isaiah 61:1 they put it in
the margine of Luke 4:18: "*Esay 61.1"

of the KJV (you know, the ones you ignore
when it suits your purposes) knew of
both

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

There are many such examples in the gospels where God or Christ Himself refers to passages in the Old Testament and give us an explanation of the sense of the passage, rather than a literal quote.

There's one important difference between those loose quotations and paraphrases and what Jesus did -- according to Luke 4 Jesus was *reading* the words from an actual written copy of Isaiah before his very eyes.

The "quote" of what Isaiah "said" is quite different. Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.

Once again, Luke tells us plainly and simply that Jesus *READ* -- not "quoted," not "modified," not "paraphrased," not "expanded," not "targummed," not "interpreted," not "changed," not "explained," not "altered," but *READ*.

What an interesting rule of interpretation we're observing here -- "When the KJV contradicts the dogma of KJV-onlyism, choose the dogma over the KJV."

 

[Precepts]

Concoction, Ed, concoction.

 

[Precepts]

I read from my Bible this morning. I read many passages, even only part os some,even the concordance a couple of times. The Bible is the "place" where I read this morning. Now did I read just one, maybe two verses?

 

[HankD]

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed [/b]the book,[/b] and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Regardless of the reason, this exact wording can be found nowhere in one place in "the book of the prophet Esaias".

The KJVO (by whatever title) outrageous and bizzare rationalizations and compromises of the Scriptures to prop up their theories will be their Waterloo.

HankD

[ March 10, 2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.

But OF COURSE He can! But remember, Jesus was reading to a skeptical audience, as the rest of Luke 4 clearly shows. These people did not believe Jesus is God. Had He changed one jot or tittle of what was written, this crowd would've instantly gone ballistic.

The Scripture is quite plain & clear as to what Jesus did. The Onlyist just doesn't want to accept the laconic statement from Scripture that Jesus read certain verses from Isaiah, and that what He read does not match the Masoret, so therefore he constantly tries to invent explanations instead of simply accepting the Scripture at face value as it's written in his/her very own KJV Bible. Why does the Onlyist deny this clear, fully-logical Scriptural explanation? Because it shows that JESUS HIMSELF is NOT limited to just one version of His own word to us in His own language. The Onlyist knows that if the AUTHOR isn't limited to just one version, He doesn't expect US to be so limited either.

To me, the TRUTH is more important than being 'right' in a debate, or the 'value' of any man-made doctrine I may have advocated. It's a matter for some people of not being able to admit their doctrine is wrong. The Onlyists have been given every opportunity to prove their doctrine right, but have utterly failed to do so. Therefore their man-made doctrine remains a myth.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Precepts:

I read from my Bible this morning. I read many passages, even only part os some,even the concordance a couple of times. The Bible is the "place" where I read this morning. Now did I read just one, maybe two verses?

You read from one book, namely, the Bible. You read from many places in that one book, namely, the different passages you looked up.

Jesus read from one "book," namely, Isaiah. He read from one place in that one "book," namely, the single passage Luke tells us He looked up and read.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Was God lying? Of course not. He can change, alter, expand, explain, or modify His own words as He sees fit. So when we read in Luke 4 that Jesus stood up to read, and He found the place where the Scripture was written, He has every right to modify and interpret His own words as He chooses.

Will Kinney

This is so thin
one can read a newspaper through a
gallon jug of it. I think the translators
knew of Luke 4:18 knew of Isaiah 61:1.
Yet they translated them different.
Why? Because the understood that the
exact wording is NOT important but the
meaning that God intended by those words.
I know the translators of Luke 4:18
knew of Isaiah 61:1 they put it in
the margine of Luke 4:18: "*Esay 61.1"

of the KJV (you know, the ones you ignore
when it suits your purposes) knew of
both </font>[/QUOTE]I must agree. ...and, might I also add, to the person who mentioned that Jesus didn't read from the LXX OR the Masoretic text, so we have concocted some strange old Bible. This is not the case. The King James simply translated the two differently. It was also different because one was originally Hebrew, the other Greek. When translating from one language to another you can have ten translations that ALL mean the same thing. This is just a fact of life since other languages do not contain the same grammatical construction.

Precept: Your making it a LONG stretch because actually you read different places in the Bible. I think Luke is extremely clear that Jesus read a scripture.

Also, let us look at Jewish history. When Jewish Rabbis read from scripture they read from a single location. Jesus was simply doing the same thing the other religious leaders in his country did. The only difference....He was pointing out that HE was the Son of God being discussed in the OT. Many places in the NT indicate that Jesus taught in the temple or synagogue. This is the form of teaching that occurred in those days. A single scripture was read and discussed.

Now, let's just use plain old common horse-sense. Why would Jesus confuse his crowd by skipping around and leaving verses out? Its because he didn't.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:

This is not the same thing that is being done with the modern versions that is being brought out. There is a major difference between the two and THIS is what we are trying to relay.

Sorry Michelle but it is the same thing. Faithful MV's (especially the formal equivalency ones) say the same thing as the KJV with different words.

It is one thing to change a word from one language to another language, but changing a word from the same language to another word with a similar meaning in the same language can cause problems.

If you will look closely at Luke 4:18 vs Isaiah 61:1, the wording is different even if you don't consider whole phrases. No problem unless you are looking to make one up. Same thing with the various word choices of faithful Bible versions... there is no problem until someone desires to make one up.

It waters down the intensity of the origional word used.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence. First, the KJV does not contain the "original" words... not even in English. It primarily borrowed phrasing from earlier translations.

Second, you assume without evidence that the KJV word is the most accurate and therefore any change results in a watering down of the intensity. This is actually demonstrably false. There are places where MV's use words that are more intense and accurate.

But this is not the major problem many have with the modern versions, and that is of delieberately changing the words that affect the meaning of the context (such as deceived, and morning star, etc.).

They aren't changing anything Michelle. They are translating. Some MV's used the KJV and other earlier versions for guidance but the authority goes back to the original language text. The word translated "deceived" in the NASB is likewise translated "deceived" many times in the KJV. The better question to ask is why the KJV was inconsistent in translating the word God Himself inspired. The "morning star" translation requires some explanation but if you look at the arguments presented on this use on the BB, there is no need for you to consider this a "major problem."

Now if the word used fits the context, it really isn't a concern. However when complete verses, and phrases are omitted out of the text, THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. This is what the problems are, and it does not seem to bother you all one bit, that these things have been done to God's holy and pure word of truth.

That is because we don't use double standards. We use the same logic to explain the apparent problems in MV's as is used by YOU and US to explain apparent problems in the KJV. If you were biblically consistent in your thinking, these "problems" wouldn't be major problems for you either.

One of the amazing things I have noted over the past couple of years here is that KJVO's won't open their eyes to the purpose of the examples we give from the KJV. I don't think that the KJV has unexplainable problems. What I want you all to do is to apply the same understanding of apparent problems in MV's (or between the versions) as you do to the KJV.

This is when you start refering back to the origional greek, and act like we are stupid and don't know what the word of God says, and has said for the past 400 years and longer.

God inspired the Bible in languages of His choosing through men of His choosing. You don't have to like it... but that makes the writings of those men and the languages they wrote in authoritative per God Himself.

we find that they do not say the same things anymore.

I have been here for a few years now... and no KJVO has ever come close to proving that MV's and the KJV do not say the same things. That is simply untrue. They teach the same doctrines and reveal the same God and Savior.

I just pray that someday you will all come to understand this.

I would suggest my prayer to you. I don't pray that God will show you the truth. Rather, I pray that He will show me the truth if I am wrong and you all the truth if you are wrong. I am not opposed to changing my view at all if I am wrong... but there has to be a basis for this "faith". None of you have shown it from either scripture or history.


Bump to Michelle... I am really interested in your answers.