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!
Michelle, "Lucifer" is the old English and old Latin word for the morning star, Venus. I recently provided a flurry of posts on this subject, please see the following discussion:
Follow the fact that there is nothing said in the KJV that isn't found in faithful MV's, but only that y'all are demanding that MV's be verbatum. Seems y'all are holding a higher standard for qualifying something as a legitimate version of God's Word than God Himself.Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
Follow the fact there is nothing that Jesus said in Luke 4 that isn't found in Isaiah, but only that yall are demanding that Luke 4 be verbatum. Seems yall are holding a higher standard than God Himself.
</font>[/QUOTE]I John 5:7,8 </font>[/QUOTE]Like you pointed out about Jesus reading of Isaiah- the Trinity is found elsewhere in MV's. Therefore, by your own rule your objection is falsified.Yes you do when you attack the KJB and say, "But it doesn't say...."</font>[/QUOTE] The problem with this statement is that it is premised on a falsehood. I have never attacked the KJV. I have acknowledged that it has weaknesses... as does any work of men no matter how good they are. However, I have never attacked it or said it wasn't the Word of God or even said that it was anything less than a superior translation, one of a select few.
God never said any of this and, contrary to you apparently, I am not confused about your deity or that of your teachers. God never said what you posted above- you did.
Even if you're joking, this statement is blasphemous. God has not proven it. It is not true... and the truth is YOU are demanding that God agree with you.God has proven it over and over to yall, and I agree with God.
Michelle, you ask me to read your posts, but you refuse to read mine. I referred you to my previous posts on the subject so I wouldn't have to reply to these arguments all over again. The very first post on the link I provided addresses this. It says: "In 2 Pet 1:19, the Greek has the single word "phosphoros" (#5459) and not "hemera" (#2250) and "aster" (#792). If it is a "problem with the translation" because the individual words "morning" and "star" are not in the original language in Isa 14:12, then tell me, does the KJV have the same "problem with the translation" because the individual words "day" and "star" are not in the original language in 2 Pet 1:19? Yes or no?"
I "understand", but I DISAGREE, because the "morning star" reading is ancient, older even than the book of Revelation. The LXX, which the Apostles used, uses the Greek word for Venus the morning star in this verse. Also, it's basically the same word as in 2 Pet 1:19, by the way! I don't care what the heathens do or did, I don't think it's wise to base translation decisions on what non-believers think. We should not bend scriptures around beliefs of others, we should let the text stand and then educate them.
Yeah, but we're talking about when God said those words and not when you've said them. </font>[/QUOTE] I recognize that you are desparate to evade the issue and avoid the obvious truth that your beliefs about versions is false... but this isn't even your best evasion work. Just deal with it QS. "Poor" and "meek" are not the same word and God didn't say either of them.
Uh, when Jesus cares for some one, believe me, well Him, they're HEALED! And Jesus doning the caring does have the definite, eternal EFFECT! So put your hand on the radio and repeat after me...
</font>[/QUOTE] OK. "Bind up" is the same as "heal", "bind up" is the same as "heal", "bind up" is the same as "heal"... Nope. Didn't work. The truth is still the truth and these are still different words.
Still not the same words... you still have two versions. The KJV still teaches that multiple versions of God's Word are OK.
O.K., so let's take them dependently upon what they really mean in context[/quote][/qb] Mean in context? Are you willing to give the same latitude to us when we show you that the KJV and MV's teach the same thing with different words when taken "in context"? You have established a rule: that if a text doesn't use the same words as the KJV it is not God's Word. Now you want to violate your own rule.
With this phrase in mind, your following explanation of how words don't mean what they mean when they disprove your predetermined conclusions about Bible versions.
Oh. So Luke as inspired is more accurate than Isaiah as inspired? So being less accurate is suddenly OK with you?
That simply doesn't answer the objection. The objection is that "bound" does not equal "bruised".
You are also glancing off the surface of giving a meaningful answer to the question at hand. I agree that Christ suffering for us is a deep subject... it simply isn't the one we are discussing.
That's called an subjective opinion. Not a fact.
O.K., but let me shoot that concept right in the heart.[/quote] Why didn't you do this?
Nor did I. I said two things. One that Jesus used different words than the KJV of Isaiah if Luke (KJV) is perfectly worded. I also said that the quote in Luke uses a phrase not found in Isaiah 61.
There is no contradiction in the Word of God. There is a discrepancy and apparently a weakness in the KJV's OT Hebrew text.
It may have been that or the version he read from may have had this phrase exactly where it appears in Luke.
Boy did the pot say a mouth full to the kettle there. It is you that demands that God only approve of the KJV... It is you that persistently demands something of the Scripture that just isn't there... it is you that has tried to put God's revelation into a box created by Anglicans in the 17th century.
This is classic. You now have claimed that even though Luke said Jesus was reading... He must have been paraphrasing since the same words aren't used by the KJV in the two passages.
Problem is.. He didn't say the same thing as appears in Isaiah 61 even if we disregard the inserted phrase. It isn't a matter of what the Lord meant or what we "keep saying". It is a matter of what the text of the KJV plainly reads.This works much in the same way where Jesus said things like: "Ye have said..., but I say...."
Big difference when the Lord says what He meant instead of what yall keep saying He said, but all the while in futility.
Follow the fact that there is nothing said in the KJV that isn't found in faithful MV's, but only that y'all are demanding that MV's be verbatum. Seems y'all are holding a higher standard for qualifying something as a legitimate version of God's Word than God Himself.Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
Follow the fact there is nothing that Jesus said in Luke 4 that isn't found in Isaiah, but only that yall are demanding that Luke 4 be verbatum. Seems yall are holding a higher standard than God Himself.
</font>[/QUOTE]I John 5:7,8 </font>[/QUOTE]Like you pointed out about Jesus reading of Isaiah- the Trinity is found elsewhere in MV's. Therefore, by your own rule your objection is falsified. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, so now you want to jump from the context of just one Book of the Bible to the whole context of the mv's? Sounds reasonable enough, except for the consistent omissions and deliberate changes of meanings to what is supposed to be clearer wordings but are altogether losing clarity and precise definitions of what Our Bible already says in the AV 1611 KJB. No thankyIf you haven't attacked the KJB, then praytell how is it you think it to have any weaknesses?
Au contraire, but the Lord has said it many times throughout His Word, you just fail to see that, I just agree with God. You lack vision simply, and insinuating some things that are truly ludricous.
No. But now let me ask how many more mv's need to be published before we'll know what God already said in the AV 1611 KJB?
What doctrine is that? KJVO ? Hah! That's just your way of labeling me, falsely.
Yeah he did, right there in Luke 4
Yeah it does, to bind up wounds is not to bandgae them alone, but to remove all injury and bleeding as well as any infection or disease, you know, like the Blood of Christ does with our leprosy.
Where? I find many places that the Lord has said differently.
[/qb] Mean in context? Are you willing to give the same latitude to us when we show you that the KJV and MV's teach the same thing with different words when taken "in context"? You have established a rule: that if a text doesn't use the same words as the KJV it is not God's Word. Now you want to violate your own rule.
No. You just like to overlook what really fits the case of the KJB and define those same words by the erroneous part of the defintion.
There you go again, trying to limit Luke 4:18 to Isaiah 61:1, just doesn't work, does it? ou've admitted it several times now then you contradict yourself over and over about it, so just leave it alone, you cannot convince me or anyone else otherwise.