Question for KJ only crowd

[prophecynut]

Quoting Daniel 2:47 from the oldest KJV I have published in 1961 reads:

"the king answered unto Daniel, and said, 'Of a truth it is , that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret'."

Is the "inspired" 1611KJV the same?

[PASTOR MHG]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Quoting Daniel 2:47 from the oldest KJV I have published in 1961 reads:

"the king answered unto Daniel, and said, 'Of a truth it is , that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret'."

Is the "inspired" 1611KJV the same? (KJV-1611) "The King answered vnto Daniel and said, Of a trueth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of Kings, and a reuealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reueale this secret."

[prophecynut]

Thank you kindly Pastor.

Quoting Dn. 2:47 from the New World Translation of the Jahovah Witnesses:

"The King was answering Daniel and saying 'Truly the God of YOU men is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a Revealer of secrets, because you were able to reveal this secret'."

There's seems to be something here that contradicts the truth, do you see it?

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Since the king was speaking,(he really didn't know Daniels God) I can't see how what he said would make difference!!

What did I miss??

Peace,

Tam

[prophecynut]

Let me give you another verse from the NWT.

John 1:1

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."

Same problem as in Dn. 2:47.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[prophecynut]

I was looking for Zachary or Ed Edwards to show up and defend "God's true inspired word in English."

You would think after 4 Centuries and the many changes to the 1611, this significant error would of been corrected. Our God is not "a" God among many, He is "the" God of all gods and "the" Lord of all Kings.

Another imperfection of the KJV is found in Mt. 7:28 and other verses: "When Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine." Doctrine only applies to the precepts established by Paul for the Church which did not exist during Christ's ministry. It was still a mystery at this time and not revealed until later.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[PastorGreg]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
I was looking for Zachary or Ed Edwards to show up and defend "God's true inspired word in English."

You would think after 4 Centuries and the many changes to the 1611, this significant error would of been corrected. Our God is not "a" God among many, He is "the" God of all gods and "the" Lord of all Kings.

Another imperfection of the KJV is found in Mt. 7:28 and other verses: "When Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine." Doctrine only applies to the precepts established by Paul for the Church which did not exist during Christ's ministry. It was still a mystery at this time and not revealed until later. Did you get laid off from your job and have more time on your hands than you know what to do with or something? Get real.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

FYI (anyone who needs to know) the NIV is "disturbingly" similer to the New World Translation [Johovahs Witness Bible].

Peace,

Tam

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[prophecynut]

"Doctrine" in Mt. 7:28; Acts 2:42; John 18:19; and others of the KJV is from the Greek word didache .

"Doctrine" in 1 Tim. 1:10; 4:16 of the KJV is from the Greek word didaskalia.

Different Greek words yet same word "doctrine" is used, why?

Doctrine is a collection or body of teachings that should not considered as such until those teachings are complete, which they were not in Mt. 7:28.

[prophecynut]

The New Living Translation has "doctrine" in only one verse, 1 Timothy 1:3 and incorrectly reverts to "teaching" in 1:10 and 4:16, yet the same Greek word 'diadache' is used in all three verses.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[prophecynut]

Doctrine is complete for the Church because the Bible is complete without further additions. Now if you belong to the Catholic Church, their doctrine continues to change and is not based on the Word.

There is enough difference in the two Greek words to warrent different transliterated English words. Jesus was not teaching about the Church as Paul was, you should take into consideration this important contextual difference.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Jesus did indeed teach about the Church.
Jesus said "I will build my church," not during his ministry.


It is a common mistake of evangelicals to give Paul more authority in the church than Jesus.

As to church doctrine, Paul was supreme. Jesus was not on earth during Paul's ministry.


Paul wasn't creating doctrine, he was developing the doctrine first offered forth by Jesus. Church doctrine was still a mystery in Jesus' time as it was in the OT. The mystery of the church was given to Paul by revelation after Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
There were churches for years before Paul began writing his letters (note that he was writing - from his point of view - letters, not Scripture); what were they doing before ol' Paul showed up???

Jewish synagogues existed before and during Paul's ministry, only the church name came into being after Pentecost and before Paul's conversion (Acts 8:1, 3).

Paul was not, is not, and would spin in his grave over the idea that he is superior in any way to Jesus Christ.

Christ is supreme in all things, he is the one who gave Church doctrine to Paul who passed it on to us. As to humans, he is supreme.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[prophecynut]

How about this awkward passage from the KJV:

Gal. 2:7
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.

This verse has contributed to the heresy of two different gospels.

What does the NIV say:

"On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews."

The NIV claims there is one gospel - clarity unmatched by the KJV.

[Ps104_33]

The KJV MUST be God's inspired Word because the Devil always seems to send his minions out of the wood work to attack it.

[prophecynut]

Call Clark Pest Control.

I have a twin brother who lives in Clear Water across the bay from you. Your area recently had a tropical storm pass by, looks like another bad season coming like last year.

Don't worry, you need not fear my brother for he does not know God like I do. graemlins/wave.gif

[Ps104_33]

1Tim. 3:16 "God was manifest" is changed to "He was manifest." The reference is to Christ manifest in the flesh, etc. The MAJORITY Text tells us that this Christ was God. There are 252 copies of Paul's Epistles which have "God" and only 2 copies which have "he." The MINORITY Text leaves us in doubt as to who "he" is. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ is greatly harmed here by the corrupt text.

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

And yet the NIV uses the 2 copies that use he. Now isn't that strange for people that are trying to translate a more correct bible.

Hmmmm----------

Selah,

Tam

[prophecynut]

1 Tim. 3:16

The NIV has in a footnote in reference to "He": "some manuscripts God "

The NIV rendering hardly can be called a corruption.
The personal pro noun "He" in "He appeared in a body" refers to the nearest antecedant which is the "living God" of the previous verse.

Looks OK to me, let me known of any other seemily corrupted passages.

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Col 1-14 in the NIV leaves out "the blood".

John 3-16 in the NIV says "one and only son", when reality, Adam was called Gods son. The CORRECT redering is only begotten son.

whats your answer to those??

Peace,

Tam

[DHK]

Take a look at the context:

The KJV
1 Timothy 3:13-16 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The ASV
1 Timothy 3:13-16 For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;

15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

The antecedent is a person. It goes back to verse 13. If I were reading along I most definitely would think that "He" would refer to the person of Jesus Christ in verse 13, not to "church of the living God" where church is the the subject of a prepostional of phrase, and God is only part of that prepositional phrase. The subject there is church, not God. One must go back to verse 13 to find out that the last person referred to is Jesus Christ.
Thus the He takes away from the deity of Christ. When it plainly says God, there is no doubt who Christ is: God come in the flesh. There is no argument by anyone--not the J.W.'s, the Mormons, or any other cult. "He" waters down that point considerably.
DHK

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:
[QB] graemlins/type.gif graemlins/flower.gif

Col 1-14 in the NIV leaves out "the blood".

NIV foot note has "A few late manuscripts 'redemption through his blood.' The parallel passage (Eph. 1:7) adds through his blood. I have no idea why translators did not in Col, but did in Eph. 1:7. Certainly no justification to say the NIV is a corrupt version.

John 3-16 in the NIV says "one and only son", when reality, Adam was called Gods son. The CORRECT redering is only begotten son.

The NIV also uses "one and only son" in John 1:14,18; 3:18 and 1 John 4:9. Begetting is a male parent procreating or generating offspring. "Begat" the archaic past tense of beget is used extensively in the OT of humans procreating and probably best not be used to depict God's super natural impregnation of Mary and birth of Jesus.

[prophecynut]

You got me on this one DHK. The antecedent does point to Christ Jesus in 13; I've connected "He" and "Christ Jesus" with a line in my Bible.

I would not say "He" waters down the point considerably, rather only slightly. You know from Scripture that Jesus appeared in a body; was vindicated by the Spirit (Act 2:24-36; Rom. 8:11); was seen by angles (Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 1:6); was preached among the nations (Col. 1:23); was believed on in the world (1 Cor. 1:18-2:5) and was taken up in glory (Eph. 4:10).

If verse 16 never appeared in Scripture would that change your view of Jesus Christ?

[DHK]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
You got me on this one DHK. The antecedent does point to Christ Jesus in 13; I've connected "He" and "Christ Jesus" with a line in my Bible.

I would not say "He" waters down the point considerably, rather only slightly. You know from Scripture that Jesus appeared in a body; was vindicated by the Spirit (Act 2:24-36; Rom. 8:11); was seen by angles (Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 1:6); was preached among the nations (Col. 1:23); was believed on in the world (1 Cor. 1:18-2:5) and was taken up in glory (Eph. 4:10).

If verse 16 never appeared in Scripture would that change your view of Jesus Christ? No, one can demonstrate the deity of Christ using other Scripture. That is true. But this is one of the most clear cut verses that states the deity of Christ in such a forth-right manner.

It is like Acts 20:28:
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
It was God that purchased the church with his own blood, not just Christ, but God himself. How much more clearly can it be said that Christ is God.
But to get around the denial of the deity of Christ, the New Word Translation, without any warrant whatsoever translates the end of this verse this way:
"with the blood of his own son."

The same kind of thing is done in 1Tim.3:16. It waters down the deity of Christ, and makes it harder to prove his deity to cults. As one man put it: "Using the KJV you cannot disprove the deity of Christ to me," he said to a J.W. He was right.
DHK

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

John 3-16 in the NIV says "one and only son", when reality, Adam was called Gods son. The CORRECT rendering is only begotten son.

The NIV also uses "one and only son" in John 1:14,18; 3:18 and 1 John 4:9. Begetting is a male parent procreating or generating offspring. "Begat" the archaic past tense of beget is used extensively in the OT of humans procreating and probably best not be used to depict God's super natural impregnation of Mary and birth of Jesus.

Only begotten is correct because God(Holy Ghost)did not cause anyone else to become pregnant. Only Mary. So Jesus didn't just happen, he was begotten!!

John 1-12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

We become sons of God too, so you see, "one and only son" is not correct!!

Luke 2-33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.


The NIV says"The childs father and mother". That is not correct because Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus!

Selah,

Tam

[prophecynut]

Tam

Lk. 2:33
Luke was already aware of the virgin birth of Christ and previously wrote about it (1:26-35), here he is referring to Joseph as Jesus' legal father.

Verse 41 in your Bible states: "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." Does this verse contradict your perception of verse 33? By the way, "passover" should be capitalized.

Surely either one of you can come up with better examples of corrupted NIV renderings than already given.

[prophecynut]

I was reading posts under the thread "Sunday Sermons" and came across several examples of "unicorn " used in the KJV, whereas most other versions have "wild ox." This is new to me and strange indeed.

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
several examples of "unicorn " used in the KJV, whereas most other versions have "wild ox." This is new to me and strange indeed. The rendering "unicorn" in the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV is likely from the influence of the Latin Vulgate's rendering "unicornis" or the Greek Septuagint's rendering "monokeros" [one horned].

Concerning this word, the 1895 SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS' BIBLE [KJV] pointed out: "The LXX
translation has passed into our A. V., but is erroneous, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves."

Likely following the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate, the early English Bibles (Wcliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops') all had 'unicorn' [singular] at Deut. 33:17. The KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier English Bibles to a plural.

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

I could give more examples, and you could come back with your sometimes weak rebuttels, but in the end, we would both stand by what we believe.

My contention is that the NIV taken as a whole, waters down the gospel. When a new Christian starts reading the NIV, they could come out with a whole "new" gospel, that leaves more room for sin, and a lot of other things.

Selah,

Tam

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:


Luke 2-33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

The NIV says"The childs father and mother". That is not correct because Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus!

Tam While I don't recommend the NIV, to be fair to it
the following information about Luke 2:33 should be noted. Several of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have "his father" at Luke 2:33. Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, 1557 Whittinghams, and 1568 Bishops' Bible have "his father"
because some editions of the Greek Textus Receptus
have this reading. Luther's German Bible also has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. The 1560 Geneva Bible is the only one that has "Joseph"
before the 1611 KJV. Would you claim that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that
weakens or tones down the gospel or the virgin birth?

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Matt. 8-2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

In the above scripture in KJV the phrase "worshipped Him" appears. Also in 9-18,15-25,18-26,20-20,Mark 5-6,15-19,the same phrase appears.

In the NIV it is not there.

My question is, why not? Why would the publishers of the NIV not want people to know that Jesus was worshipped??

Think about it,

Tam

[prophecynut]

"worshipped" in the Greek is proskuneo [pros-koo-neh'-o} and means:

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

1) to the Jewish high priests

2) to God

3) to Christ

4) to heavenly beings

5) to demons

Loks like the NIV is right on the money.

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Looks like a very intellagent man is turning down very obvious truths because they are being presented by a woman!

Oh well.

Tam

[steaver]

Hi prophecynut, these articles may enlighten you about bible versions and their mis-interpretations.

This brother has done some VERY indepth research on this subject. Take some time to read over his findings and you may come to a different conclusion about the "any bible will do" sermons.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

God Bless! graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by steaver:

This brother
you may come to a different conclusion about the "any bible will do" sermons.

brandplucked

Brandplucked [Will Kinney] would make the interpretating/translating of Church of England scholars in 1611 into a greater authority than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. If effect, his views undermines the very foundation on which the proper derived authority of a good translation depends. He is perhaps blinded by his inconsistent, man-made KJV-only claims and bias. Disagreeing with the man-made KJV-only view does not mean that a believer accepts an "any bible will do" view.

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops].
It is more of a revision than it is a new translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The KJV-only view undermines
the very English foundation on which the KJV was built.

[prophecynut]

I recommend you don't rely solely on the KJV, consult other versions. When you study the Word consult various dictionaries, commentaries, scholars and teachers. Don't be a KJV fanatic.

[Bro. Curtis]

I find that an exaustive concordance is a big help.

Mark 1:10 "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:" (KJV)

I found this to be inaccurate. The word for "opened" seems to mean the sky was ripped open, violently.

Just an off-the-top-of-my-head observation.

[dean198]

June 10, 2005, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ] What is a woman doing editing posts? How contrary to the mindset of the Apostle! How politically correct. If women are not allowed to handle the holy scriptures in the meeting, but are to 'be under subjection', and to 'learn in silence', not with 'plaited hair' or outward ornamentation, but with a 'quite and meek spirit', than what is some permed haired woman with a painted face doing making such decisions here?

[Bro. Curtis]

See ya later, Deano.

[dean198]

too scared to agree with scripture bro?

[Bro. Curtis]

Not scared at all. I see the love of Christ in her posts, and have a great amount of respect for her. Why attack her, for making you obey the rules ?

I'll bow out. She is more than capable of fighting her own battles.

[dean198]

She never deleted my posts. It is a principle I am affirming; a principle upheld by the apostle, and which evidently you are too weak kneed to abide by. I hope God raises some MEN, not effiminate compromises with political correctness

[DHK]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
I was reading posts under the thread "Sunday Sermons" and came across several examples of "unicorn " used in the KJV, whereas most other versions have "wild ox." This is new to me and strange indeed. It ought not to be strange. The word "unicorn" is one of the strangest translational errors of the KJB. Where did it exactly come from, I am not sure. Most people are acquainted with the Greek unicorn that originates from pagan mythology. Is this what the Hebrews had in mind? Then why would the KJV translators use such a word? It is one of the most ambiguous words in the Bible, which even Job 39 describes more accurately as to what one could guess it could be simply by context.

Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
--God is making a comparison of a "unicorn" to a domesticated animal that can "abide by the crib." What animal stays by the crib?
That question has a limited number of answers if you have lived on a farm.

Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
--Now the comparison is narrowed down to an animal that abides by the crib when at rest, but when working pulls a plow to make a furrow, harrows the valley. Thus it is a strong animal. That narrows the animal down greatly. It must be an animal strong enough to plow a field.

Job 39:11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
--The animal God is talking about is obviuosly a wild animal that is not tame. The animal Job has is tame. Job can trust his domesticated animal to plow his field, but can he trust this wild animal with great strength to plow his field.

Job 39:12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
--Again a farming illustration, that is continued from the above. Can the animal in question be trusted?

We look up the Hebrew word "rheem" and find that it means "wild Ox," which God has been comparing to Job's dometicated ox. Can Job trust the huge strength of the wild ox that roamed in that area, to plow his field, to make a straight furrow? to come safely back home again? Can he trust such a huge wild animal to stay resting at his crib peacefully when not a work as his domesticated ox does? The answer is obviously not!
Job doesn't know all things, and God is letting Job know this. The word unicorn does not fit in this passage at all. It is a mistranslation. One can figure out the proper translation just from reading the context of this passage.
DHK

[dianetavegia]

This isn't church.

Glad this came up, tho. Dean198 changed his profile after I approved his membership and is of a denomination no longer approved. He's outta here.

Diane

[steaver]

It ought not to be strange. The word "unicorn" is one of the strangest translational errors of the KJB. I find it strange that you would call this an error. Do you honestly believe that the 48 or so translators of the KJB all made an "error" when they agreed on "unicorn"? Aren't the odds of it being an "error" astronomical?

Is the KJB the only bible which made this "error"? It seems quite a few "scholars" thought that it was the correct word to use. But we are much wiser and smarter than those of the past, right? :rolleyes:

Here are a few other bibles which made the same "error" I guess. I wonder where they all went so wrong...

"The word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, the so called Greek Septuagint version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s 1833 translation of the Bible, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York." (Will Kinney's research)

Where did it exactly come from, I am not sure. Are you so sure it is an error? ;)

God Bless!

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Where did it exactly come from, I am not sure. Are you so sure it is an error? ;)

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it is an error.
There are many errors in the KJB. No translation is perfect. The only infallible, God-breathed, inspired error-free documents were the original manuscripts written by the prophets and the Apostles which we no longer have. I believe that God has preserved his Word in the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have today, but not in translations, not in any translation. To say that the King James Version is error free, would mean that I, as a missionary, would have to go to a non-English speaking nation, teach the people archaic Shakespearean English before I could teach them the Word of God. How absurd! Their translations: whether Arabic or Sanskrit, are as much the Word of God as the KJB.
If God were to choose a translation to be inspired, don't you think he would be fair and just? There are more Chinese people, or more people that speak Sanskrit in this world than any other language. If God were fair and just, he would have inspired the Bible in Sanskrit and forced you and all the English speaking to learn Sanskrit, not the OE that the KJV was translated into.

Every translation loses meaning in its translation--every translation. No translation is perfect.
If I translated the first chapter of John into English, would you consider it inspired or not? Why or why not?
DHK

[Travelsong]

I'm just curious. Please don't take this as a provocation because I've thought about these kinds of verses often. Dean raised an objection from Scripture that is compromised and not talked about much at all. Any thoughts?

Again, not trying to push buttons, but it does appear that the body as a whole has made some odd concessions regarding the role of women in church as of late. Yes?

[Claudia_T]

I would rather rely upon God and the Holy Spirit than to rely upon men's interpretations of the Bible and versions of the Bible to teach me.


Jesus said God reveals His truths unto babes and not unto those who think themselves to be wise.

Lk:10:21: In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

You do not have to be a scholar to understand the very plain and simple words of the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is able to teach you what the Scriptures mean... and you are to compare scripture with scripture. The Bible is its own expositor... it explains itself.


1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

I have learned so much by just simply taking a word such as "Faith" or "Commandments" or "Eternal Life" and so on, and looking up each place in the scriptures that uses that word and comparing the scriptures one with another.

Unfortunately, in these other versions of the Bible, the words are changed and it makes it difficult to do that.

You do not need men's interpretations of the Bible ... you do not need them to try to "simplify" the scriptures for you, they are plenty plain enough as they are... you need the Bible and the Holy Spirit to explain the Word of God to you.

I remember one time I was looking at another Bible version thinking it would simplfy my Bible studying... I ran across a verse that had the word "terebrinth" in it ... I had no idea what it meant. So I just went to my King James Bible and it said "Oak Tree"... and I KNEW what that meant! Its just sad, these men who think themselves wise and like THEY are going to interpret the Bible for you and try to take the place of the Holy Spirit.


------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

[DHK]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:

The Holy Spirit is able to teach you what the Scriptures mean... and you are to compare scripture with scripture. The Bible is its own expositor... it explains itself. Then read the New Testament here and explain what it means to me:

John 1 (http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.exe?StringToSearch=joh+1&version=GNTstp)


No you don't need "other" translations. You don't even need the KJV, which is a translation itself. You need to know what the translation says, and why the translation says what it is saying. Why did the translators use certain words.
Why did the KJV use the phrase "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle when you know that the stainless steel needle that you are acquainted with wasn't even invented yet. So what did Christ mean?

What did Peter mean when he said "gird up the loins of your mind," What did the KJV translators have in mind when they translated the Greek in those terms? Why don't you go read the actual Greek and find out what it says. The Bible is not preserved in a translation, but rather in the Greek and Hebrew.
DHK

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother DHK! graemlins/thumbs.gif

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Travelsong said:I'm just curious. Please don't take this as a provocation because I've thought about these kinds of verses often. Dean raised an objection from Scripture that is compromised and not talked about much at all. Any thoughts?

Again, not trying to push buttons, but it does appear that the body as a whole has made some odd concessions regarding the role of women in church as of late. Yes?

Since there are a lot of women posting on this board and some are "preaching" to others, I see nothing wrong with Diane being one who can give somebody the "boot" if they are misbehaving!!

After all, at home it's a woman "mom" that washes a kids mouth out with soap or disciplines him if he does something wrong! :D

Have a good day!!

Tam

[DHK]

Diane also said "this is not a church."
If it were, you would have little precious part in it. Perhaps only in those forums confined to women.
DHK

[steaver]

Yes, it is an error.
There is no way this can be called an "error". All of these translators must have purposefully chose "unicorn" either because of good reason or because of evil deciet. There is no "mistake" made here in the translating. They had a reason and just because the reason might be long lost, it doesn't give us the right to say they were wrong. Maybe the reason is researchable, but rest assured these translators, and there were many, not just KJViers, had some good reason for saying unicorn. No God fearing Christian would conclude that a word which could mean "wild ox" should be translated "unicorn" without some sort of logical reason. Since you don't know the reason then maybe they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Just my opinion :D

The only infallible, God-breathed, inspired error-free documents were the original manuscripts written by the prophets and the Apostles which we no longer have. And it is true that this must be accepted by faith.

I believe that God has preserved his Word in the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have today, but not in translations, not in any translation. Again this is only by faith, correct? You have no way of proving that the existing manuscripts are exactly what was written in the originals, correct?

God Bless!

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by steaver:
They had a reason and just because the reason might be long lost, it doesn't give us the right to say they were wrong. Maybe the reason is researchable, but rest assured these translators, and there were many, not just KJViers, had some good reason for saying unicorn. No God fearing Christian would conclude that a word which could mean "wild ox" should be translated "unicorn" without some sort of logical reason. In some cases, the only reason for a rendering in the KJV may be simply that the KJV translators kept it from the Bishops' Bible or one of the other earlier English Bibles. For examples, some of the renderings in the 1611 edition that later editors corrected (and KJV-only advocates excuse as being only printing errors) were actually the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves since they kept or left them in the text from the Bishops' Bible.

The early English Bibles' source for "unicorn" was likely the Greek Septuagint's rendering "monokeros" or Latin Vulgate's "unicronis" or both. Based on Deut. 33:17, where the Hebrew word 'reem' is singular
but has "horns" plural, many Hebrew scholars maintain that the animal in question had two horns.

Roy Pinney offered one explanation of how the reem may have been mixed up with the Greek unicorn. Pinney pointed out how the reem is presented on the Ishtar GAte, a brick arch in ancient Babylon that is covered with glazed basreliefs that showed various animals in profile. Pinney noted that "the bi-horned reem, in its appearance on the gate, appears to have but a single horn" (ANIMALS OF THE BIBLE, p. 204).
THE BAKER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE also noted: "The translators of the KJV called the wild ox a unicorn because of representations found on Babylonian mosaics and Egyptians drawings. These representations showed it in strict profile, showing only one horn; hence 'unicorn'" (Vol. I, p. 114).

There is a picture of an unicorn in the 1611 edition of the KJV, but that picture in the royal coat of arms is of the mythological "unicorn."

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
There is no way this can be called an "error". All of these translators must have purposefully chose "unicorn" either because of good reason or because of evil deciet. There is no "mistake" made here in the translating. They had a reason and just because the reason might be long lost, it doesn't give us the right to say they were wrong. Maybe the reason is researchable, but rest assured these translators, and there were many, not just KJViers, had some good reason for saying unicorn. No God fearing Christian would conclude that a word which could mean "wild ox" should be translated "unicorn" without some sort of logical reason. Since you don't know the reason then maybe they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Just my opinion Yes, it can be called an error. Just because people copy other people's errors doesn't make it any less an error. Quite often the majority is wrong. No one said anything about evil deceit, and you are the one that implies that. The fact is that it is not a good translation and you are so emotionally attached to the translation that you won't admit it.
If there was a good reason for using the word "unicorn" then what is it? I haven't heard it yet. It was a bad translation. Period. A mistake in translation--whatever suits your terminology best.
Are you saying that all the translations since the KJV that have translated the word "rheem" as wild ox, whether in commentaries, lexicons, or in the many other translations (both English and in other languages) are ALL ungodly? How arrogant an assumption!! There are dictionaries (lexicons) available. The Hebrew word is "rheem." Learn how to use a Hebrew lexicon and look the word up for yourself. It does not mean unicorn. That means the translation of the KJB is wrong. Isn't that simple?

Here is some information about the KJV you ought to know:
the King James Bible which they (KJVOers) use is in fact the 1769 edition of the KJV. That edition differs in substance from 1611 in 136 places. However, the vast majority of those who take a KJVO position use the 1769 edition.
Another problem facing those advocating a KJVO position is the difference between the Oxford Edition of the 1769 edition and the Cambridge Edition thereof. The Cambridge Edition is the one used in England. The Oxford Edition is the more commonly used one in the United States. These two editions differ in their rendering of Jer.34:16. The Cambridge edition (of the 1769) reads as follows:
"But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids."
The Oxford edition (1769) reads thus:
But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids."
As it turns out, the Cambridge Edition is the correct translation of the traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text. Moreover, the KJVO position is almost an American phenomenon. What is ironic, however, is that many KJVO advocates use the Oxford Edition of the 1769 KJV.("Touch Not the Unclean Thing," Sorenson)

The only infallible, God-breathed, inspired error-free documents were the original manuscripts written by the prophets and the Apostles which we no longer have. And it is true that this must be accepted by faith.It is a position that can be accepted by intelligent faith. All others (ex. secondary inspiration) are based on blind faith, if not absolute illogical fallacies and absuridities which cannot be explained away. My position is the only position which has Scriptural support.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Frist point is all Scripture is inspired of God. We can all agree on that.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Second, The Scriptures came by the will of God, as holy men of God (the prophets and the Apostles) spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the process of inspiration. Who did God inspire? He inspired: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, John, etc.: the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament. Specifically, God inspired their words. Thus it was their manuscripts and no other manuscripts that were inspired. No copies were inspired. No translations were or are inspired. Only the words of the prophets and Apostles are inspired. This is exactly what this verse says. The problem is that you don't want to believe it.

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Third, What does Peter say, by way of a commandment? Be mindful of the words which were spoken to you. Spoken by Whom?
1. by the holy prophets.
2. and of the commandment of US the apostles of the Lord and Savior.

Peter says that they should be mindful of both the OT prophets and the NT Apostles, and puts the words of the Apostles on par with the words of the prophets--just as important as the prophets whom the Jews revered.
Never is any translation said or inferred to be inspired, neither any copy, but only the words of the prophets and of the Apostles. We don't have those words any longer. We only have copies of them, and then translations of them. I believe that the Word of God is preserved in the copies that we have of the originals that don't exist any longer for God has promised to preserve his word. He never promised to preserve his language in the KJV or in any other language.
I believe that God has preserved his Word in the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have today, but not in translations, not in any translation. Again this is only by faith, correct? You have no way of proving that the existing manuscripts are exactly what was written in the originals, correct?
God Bless! Today there are more than 5,650 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The vast majority of these contain only portions of the New Testament. In some cases, they represent less than a single page of a given book.
Nevertheless with such a preponderance of manuscripts still in existence, there is a way to determine what exactly was written in the originals if one is willing to take the time to do the study. Again, study and faith go together. Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence and intelligence.
Many religions, like Islam, go by "blind faith." They blindly believe whatever the Mullahs teach whether it makes sense or not. Many KJVO's do the same thing. They have blind faith. It is irrational to do so.
DHK

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Claudia_T:

The Holy Spirit is able to teach you what the Scriptures mean... and you are to compare scripture with scripture. The Bible is its own expositor... it explains itself. Then read the New Testament here and explain what it means to me:

John 1 (http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.exe?StringToSearch=joh+1&version=GNTstp)


No you don't need "other" translations. You don't even need the KJV, which is a translation itself. You need to know what the translation says, and why the translation says what it is saying. Why did the translators use certain words.
Why did the KJV use the phrase "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle when you know that the stainless steel needle that you are acquainted with wasn't even invented yet. So what did Christ mean?

What did Peter mean when he said "gird up the loins of your mind," What did the KJV translators have in mind when they translated the Greek in those terms? Why don't you go read the actual Greek and find out what it says. The Bible is not preserved in a translation, but rather in the Greek and Hebrew.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK;
You KNOW there is no "actual Greek". And there is no "actual Hebrew".

Unless you want us to believe that you have read and have access to and understand, and can translate all of the 25,000+ MSS of those two languages combined?

Quit it. You fellas make me chuckle at times considering you post as if you are the end all and be all of Bible translational issues.

Why don't you fellas excercise a little bit of faith in God's ability to get it right for us peons?

Nevermind. You won't or can't.

In HIS service;
Jim

[gb93433]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Why don't you fellas excercise a little bit of faith in God's ability to get it right for us peons?
God got it right the first time. He didn't need a second chance with Ruckman.

[DHK]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
DHK;
You KNOW there is no "actual Greek". And there is no "actual Hebrew".Yep! and the English language doesn't exist, neither does America, nor Israel for that fact. I guess some people wantto be blind.
Unless you want us to believe that you have read and have access to and understand, and can translate all of the 25,000+ MSS of those two languages combined?My personal belief is that the Bible that we have today is preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and in the Received Text, both of which are available at www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org) I don't have to be a scholar to be able to use them, just like I don't have to have a Ph.d in English to use a dictionary :rolleyes:
But some people love to dwell in ignorance and naiviete. In fact they refuse to obey the commandment:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Which, of course, is a commandment written in Greek. I believe it is very cowardly of some on this board to avoid the study of the Bible in the languages in which they were written. This is God's command isn't it. It was written in Greek, not in English.

Quit it. You fellas make me chuckle at times considering you post as if you are the end all and be all of Bible translational issues.And who has the last laugh? I could list dozens of phrases or words that you would have no understanding whatsoever without an outside help--someone who has studied the Greek and Hebrew for you, because you won't do it for yourself.
For example, what does it mean in Phil.3:20

"For our "conversation" is in heaven..."
What does the word "conversation" mean in this verse, and how do you know?

Why don't you fellas excercise a little bit of faith in God's ability to get it right for us peons?

Nevermind. You won't or can't.

In HIS service;
Jim Because you can't get it right without outside help. I have already demonstrated that.
If you could you would know what a unicorn without this discussion.
Phil.3:20 "conversation"
"gird up the loins of your mind"
"camel to go through the eye of a needle"
literal meaning of "Belial" 2Cor.6

Do you want more? Can you find the meanings of these without going to any other source but the KJV? Somewhere along the line I will guarantee that you use some source that has sourced the Greek or Hebrew even if it is Strong's concordance.
DHK

[gb93433]

Originally posted by av1611jim:

You KNOW there is no "actual Greek". And there is no "actual Hebrew".
Is that kind of like us, trying to convince the blind, there is sight.

[steaver]

Yes, it can be called an error. Just because people copy other people's errors doesn't make it any less an error. So we should believe that the KJV translators looked at the word "rheem" in the manuscripts but chose to say "unicorn" just because others had in the past. If that is the "reason" then it is true that they didn't really care much whether they were very acurate in their work. Pretty slopy work indeed.

If there was a good reason for using the word "unicorn" then what is it? I haven't heard it yet. My very point. If we don't know why then any declaration of right or wrong is forming an opinion without knowing all the facts.

Are you saying that all the translations since the KJV that have translated the word "rheem" as wild ox, whether in commentaries, lexicons, or in the many other translations (both English and in other languages) are ALL ungodly? How arrogant an assumption!! Calm down brother. You are placing remarks to me that were not spoken by me. I haven't made any assumptions. Have you?

Learn how to use a Hebrew lexicon and look the word up for yourself. Can we talk about this issue without putting down or trying to belittle a brother in Christ?

It does not mean unicorn. That means the translation of the KJB is wrong. Isn't that simple?
I don't think it must always be so cut and dried. Many translators in the past believed that unicorn was a good term to use in the passage. Why? I don't know. I do believe however that all of these translators must of had a good reason for believing themselves that it was ok and appropriate, a reason that we do not understand. If it was so simple to just say wild ox then why wouldn't they just say that? They could have, right? Surely they must have discussed it. Without all of the proper facts, which we may never know in this life time, we should not declare the translators in error. If we knew why they did it then we could make an informed decision as to whether or not they made a right judgment.

Here is some information about the KJV you ought to know: Thanks brother, I have read many of these views over and over, I am not new to this topic. I have studied the pros and cons in depth and have come to a different opinion than you. Maybe in the end you will be found right. But I am a conservative and have put my trust in the belief that God has provided the common folk like myself with a preserved Word in English and since the KJB was good enough for His children for some two hundred years or so I will just stay with it and preach it as the pure Word of the Lord. God has blessed me and my ministries and it is the only bible I now read from. I use to study an NIV but it left me very wanting. graemlins/thumbs.gif

It is a position that can be accepted by intelligent faith. All others (ex. secondary inspiration) are based on blind faith, if not absolute illogical fallacies and absuridities which cannot be explained away. My position is the only position which has Scriptural support. Well, I will let my faith be judged by our Lord. Maybe He will tell me one day that I had a stupid faith. "Intelligent Faith" brother? Bottom line is faith! You have absolutely no proof that the originals were error free yet you believe it as do I. That is blind faith in God and is exactly what all of us have after you cut through all of the "scholarship" rehtoric.

Second, The Scriptures came by the will of God, as holy men of God (the prophets and the Apostles) spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the process of inspiration. Who did God inspire? He inspired: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, John, etc.: the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament. Specifically, God inspired their words. Thus it was their manuscripts and no other manuscripts that were inspired. No copies were inspired. No translations were or are inspired. Only the words of the prophets and Apostles are inspired. This is exactly what this verse says. The problem is that you don't want to believe it. I belive it brother. I also believe that God would not deliver His Word with perfection and then fail to preserve it with perfection. If He can deliver it with perfection in spite of imperfect men then He can preserve it with perfection in spite of imperfect men, even from language to language. I believe the copies are also perfect and that makes them the "inspired" words of God. Just my stupid faith tongue.gif

Today there are more than 5,650 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The vast majority of these contain only portions of the New Testament. In some cases, they represent less than a single page of a given book.
Nevertheless with such a preponderance of manuscripts still in existence, there is a way to determine what exactly was written in the originals if one is willing to take the time to do the study. Again, study and faith go together. Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence and intelligence.
Many religions, like Islam, go by "blind faith." They blindly believe whatever the Mullahs teach whether it makes sense or not. Many KJVO's do the same thing. They have blind faith. It is irrational to do so.
DHK You still need that portion of faith, just can't escape it! God Bless!

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Diane also said "this is not a church."
If it were, you would have little precious part in it. Perhaps only in those forums confined to women.
DHK

You say that like I forgot where I am!! I know full well your opinion of women in church.

I was trying to be nice and that's what I get.

Thanks for nothing.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by av1611jim:

You KNOW there is no "actual Greek". And there is no "actual Hebrew".

Jim Are you claiming that the KJV was not translated from the "actual Greek" and the "actual Hebrew?"

[DHK]

Originally posted by tamborine lady:
graemlins/type.gif

Diane also said "this is not a church."
If it were, you would have little precious part in it. Perhaps only in those forums confined to women.
DHK

You say that like I forgot where I am!! I know full well your opinion of women in church.

I was trying to be nice and that's what I get.

Thanks for nothing.

Working for Jesus,

Tam Tam, it wasn't meant as an offensive remark, but rather to show where the original poster (Dean) was way off in his remarks. We welcome all posters (including you.) Many churches (especially more conservative Baptists) have a limited role for women in the ministry. For example, they definitely would not have a female pastor. If anything I thought my remark would open the discussion to that area.
I am sorry if I offended you.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
Thanks brother, I have read many of these views over and over, I am not new to this topic. I have studied the pros and cons in depth and have come to a different opinion than you. Maybe in the end you will be found right. But I am a conservative and have put my trust in the belief that God has provided the common folk like myself with a preserved Word in English and since the KJB was good enough for His children for some two hundred years or so I will just stay with it and preach it as the pure Word of the Lord. God has blessed me and my ministries and it is the only bible I now read from. I use to study an NIV but it left me very wanting. graemlins/thumbs.gif
The issue here is not MV's or the NIV. The issue pertains to the inerrancy of the KJV, which you apparently believe. I also stand against the MV, since I believe that the Bible has been preserved in the Received Text. So the NIV is not the issue.
I use the KJV. I believe it is the most accurate translation that we have today. I am on your side. I disagree with the MV's and abhor the way that Critical Text was deliberately tampered with, as far back as Origen, in order to weaken doctrines such as the deity of Christ. I fully realize these things.

But the KJVO position has gone overboard to another position without thinking it through, and without regard for Scripture. You need an understanding of what faith is. Faith is not blind belief. Faith is not calling an apple pink, and eternally declaring it pink, when it is red. No matter how much you (by faith) call the apple pink, it will always be red. Faith operates on knwledge. It has a basis in fact. It is not blind. Abraham is known as a man of faith. The basis of his faith was God's Word, what God had told him he acted upon. His faith was not blind. "He staggered not at the promises of God, but was strong in faith, being fully persuaded that what God had promised he was able to perform." Abraham was strong in faith. Why? He was persuaded that what God had promised he would do. How come? He staggered not at the promises of God.
His faith was based on what God had said.

God never said He would preserve His Word in English, not to mention inspire it. There is no such promise in the Bible. Your faith is blind. It is not based on the Word of God. Yes, I have faith. It is an intelligent faith based on the facts that are given in the Word of God, such as every Christian ought to have--not blind faith as the heathen have.

You arrogance shows in the above post. God provided an inspired Word for less than 1% of the world, and damned the rest of the world to hell. Though the Bible says he so loved the world He sent his son to die for the world, that whosoever believes in him should have everlasting life, you don't believe that. Because only the KJV is inspired. Thus people who cannot read the KJV cannot be saved.
What about over one billion people that read and understand Sanskrit, the most widely spoken language in the world. They don't have a KJV Bible. So are they all condemned to Hell because God didn't give them the KJV? What about Arabic, Cree, Punjabi, Maori, etc. Does not God love these people also? They don't have the KJV. Is God so limited that He so loved the KJV people, and gave his only begotten son only for the KJVOers that if the KJVOer would believe in him they should have eternal life and all others will take their place in the lake of fire. Is that your belief?
DHK

[steaver]

You arrogance shows in the above post. God provided an inspired Word for less than 1% of the world, and damned the rest of the world to hell. Though the Bible says he so loved the world He sent his son to die for the world, that whosoever believes in him should have everlasting life, you don't believe that. Because only the KJV is inspired. Thus people who cannot read the KJV cannot be saved.
What about over one billion people that read and understand Sanskrit, the most widely spoken language in the world. They don't have a KJV Bible. So are they all condemned to Hell because God didn't give them the KJV? What about Arabic, Cree, Punjabi, Maori, etc. Does not God love these people also? They don't have the KJV. Is God so limited that He so loved the KJV people, and gave his only begotten son only for the KJVOers that if the KJVOer would believe in him they should have eternal life and all others will take their place in the lake of fire. Is that your belief?
Wow!

Are you sure you are responding to my comments?

Slow down brother, we are discussing the accurracy of an English translation. I have no idea how accurate these other bibles are in other languages nor do I care. What I have found is that there is no absolute "errors" in the KJB translation. Some things are questionable at best, but nothing is proven to be out right wrong.

Please don't let your emotions drive your responses. You are laying on me things that I do not believe and demanding that I do! If your position is correct on the matter you will be vindicated in the end. If my position is found to be in error then I will humbly accept my Lord's rebuke. If you are wrong, I also pray the Lord does not hold any charge against you.

But for now I must teach that the bible (KJV) I hold in my hand is the pure preserved Word of God in English. If our Lord finds that offensive, I pray He will deal with me for any wrong I have done.

God Bless!

[steaver]

DHK,

Can you explain to me how you "know" the original manuscripts were error free?

God Bless!

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by steaver
What I have found is that there is no absolute "errors" in the KJB translation. Some things are questionable at best, but nothing is proven to be out right wrong.

Dn.2:47 "your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings.

KJB has our God among many other gods and as Lord among many other kings. He is the God of gods the Lord of kings.

2 Cor. 11:2 "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband."

KJB has a bride engaged to a husband.

Gal. 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumsion was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter."

The KJB has two different gospels.

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
Wow!

Are you sure you are responding to my comments?The trouble is that you are not responding to mine. You care not to respond to the mistranslations or the difficult passages that I have presented to you. You are strangely quiet about them. Why?
Slow down brother, we are discussing the accurracy of an English translation. I have no idea how accurate these other bibles are in other languages nor do I care. What I have found is that there is no absolute "errors" in the KJB translation. Some things are questionable at best, but nothing is proven to be out right wrong.There are dozens if not hundreds of errors. You don't want to believe that only because of pure sentimentality. Here is a good example of one. The word "pascha" means Passover. This Greek word is used 29 times in the New Testament. 28 times it si conrrectly translated as Passover. Only once is it translated differently than passover, and that is in Acts 12:4, where it is erroneously translated "Esster." "Pascha" does not, has never meant Easter, which is a pagan celebration. The word "pascha" has one and only one meaning, and that is Passover. The mistranslation was a deliberate error on the part of the KJV translators because of political expedience, as was other ecclesiatical words:
baptidzo should have been translated immersion, and not Baptism.
ekklesia should have been translated assembly, and not church
In Phil.3:20 "ocnversation" should have been translated "citizenship, not conversation. This is an obvious mistake.
In Rom.6:2 God Forbid! is a complete mistranslation, and an error. There is no "God" and no "forbid" in the Greek (in any manuscript anywhere). It just isn't there. The correct translation is "May it not be." What the KJV translatros did is what most fundamentals complain and criticize the MV translators of doing. It is called dynamic equivalency. They didn't give a literal translation. They gave what they thought was something equivalent in their own words. It is more like a paraphrase than a translation. To get a good example read the Living Bible.

You say you are simply talking of the English Bible. That is your problem. Christ didn't die just for the English speaking world. He died for all the world. So tell me what are the "inspired" versions in other languages? If you don't know I will tell you. Many nations in this world have Bibles that have been translated by the Wycliffe Bible Translators, for which we thank the Lord for. However, as the Wycliffe Bible Translators have gone to nations all over this world, they have gone with the critical text and have produced translations in different languages from the critical text. I have been in several nations which only have one Bible, and that Bible is translated from the Critical Text. If you were a missionary to that nation preaching the gospel to them would you stand before them and tell them that they don't have the Word of God just because it is not the KJV, or just because it is not from the Received Text. You have a problem Houston!!

Please don't let your emotions drive your responses. You are laying on me things that I do not believe and demanding that I do! If your position is correct on the matter you will be vindicated in the end. If my position is found to be in error then I will humbly accept my Lord's rebuke. If you are wrong, I also pray the Lord does not hold any charge against you.

But for now I must teach that the bible (KJV) I hold in my hand is the pure preserved Word of God in English. If our Lord finds that offensive, I pray He will deal with me for any wrong I have done.

God Bless! And I applaud you. Teach the Bible. But you cannot teach that Bible if you do not know what it means. You cannot know what it means unless you consult the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated. It is not the translation that is preserved, it is the Greek and Hebrew from which all translations come from that is preserved. If you say otherwise, then every foreign translation must be translated from the KJV, which is a ridiculous position to take. When Adoniram Judson went to Burma, he translated the Bible into the Burmese language. But he could do so because he could read Greek fluently. Half way across the Atlantic he changed from being a Congregationalist and became a Baptist by studying the Greek New Testament, and became convinced that baptidzo meant immersion, and thus baptism had to be by immersion. The Congregational Church was just wrong on this issue. Despite the consequence he became a Baptist. His conclusions were solely based on a study of the Greek. His translation of the Burmese Bible was based solely on the Greek and Hebrew, not the KJV. The KJVO has a big problem with foreign languages, foreign nations, foreign Bibles, and consequently the Great Commission. For the Great Commission does not say: Go into all the world and take the KJV to every creature.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
DHK,

Can you explain to me how you "know" the original manuscripts were error free?

God Bless! I believe the Bible. God says they were. He gives me his assurance. Check 2Pet.1:20,21 and 2Tim.3:16.
God's Word is inspired. The words of the prophets and the Apostles (2Pet.3:1,2); those are the words that are inspired, not the words of the KJV translators--but the words of the prophets and the Apostles. The Bible is very clear on this. The Bible makes no provision for copies and translations.
DHK

[av1611jim]

The Bible makes no provision for copies and translations.
DHK
__________________________________________________

Therefore; not one person of any language on earth has Scripture today.

Neither Peter nor Paul would have known OT Scripture apart from copies and (according to some folks) translations.

So what you are saying is that neither Peter nor Paul had Scripture, since it is SCRIPTURE that they both say is inspired of God. But they do not know what Scripture is since all they had was copies or translations.

As you said, "The Bible is very clear on this."

(I think you just stepped on your tongue, sir.)

In HIS service;
Jim

[DHK]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
The Bible makes no provision for copies and translations.
DHK
__________________________________________________

Therefore; not one person of any language on earth has Scripture today.

Neither Peter nor Paul would have known OT Scripture apart from copies and (according to some folks) translations.

So what you are saying is that neither Peter nor Paul had Scripture, since it is SCRIPTURE that they both say is inspired of God. But they do not know what Scripture is since all they had was copies or translations.

As you said, "The Bible is very clear on this."

(I think you just stepped on your tongue, sir.)

In HIS service;
Jim Paul, regarding the Old Testament Scriptures would have taken the same position as I. Peter certainly did. Again, I challenge you to read 2Peter 1:20,21, and give an objective truthful meaning of it. There are no copies that are inspired. Whether Old or New Testament, Peter says only the words of the writers were inspired. That is not what I say; it is what God says. Take your argument up with God.
DHK

[The Bible Answer Kid]

If anyone's interested there's an article relating to this topic at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/goddoesn.htm

[DHK]

Very good article, Bible Answer

[steaver]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by steaver:
DHK,

Can you explain to me how you "know" the original manuscripts were error free?

God Bless!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by DHK,

I believe the Bible. God says they were. Then the copies of the originals are without error, is this correct?

God Bless!

ps. sorry I don't have much time to respond to all the post and questions to me. I should have some more time this Sunday...very busy daylight to dark! tongue.gif

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
Then the copies of the originals are without error, is this correct?

God Bless!

ps. sorry I don't have much time to respond to all the post and questions to me. I should have some more time this Sunday...very busy daylight to dark! tongue.gif No, not necessarily. No man is perfect. To say so would to be to contradict the Bible. See 1John 1:8,10. We all make mistakes. We are fallible, not perfect. Thus through the process of time there have been copyists mistakes--mostly minor spelling mistakes, printing errors, and the such. But sometimes there are greater errors than that. For instance, some times it seems to be as great as the substitution of God for Lord. How do we know which is correct? Remember we have over 5,000 existing manuscripts. Through a prcess of lower textual criticsm (I use the word "lower" for "higher" refers to those who would destroy our Bible), we can compare the manuscripts and see which copyist has made the mistake. The majority is usually the right one. There, of course, are other factors that are considered. I believe that the text has been faithfully preserved in the Received Text, or what has otherwise been termed the Majority Text. It is that text which has been used historically down throughout the ages by the churches. It has a history behind it. Majority means that the majority agrees with it. There is no question in my mind that God has preserved his Word, not in any translation, as the KJV, but in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. The translated languages (KJV English) can never be more accurate than the language from which it is translated. That is an absurd stand to take. Thus the Word is preserved in the original languages, not the translated languages.
DHK

[steaver]

To whom it may concern...

Here is a very good article that has researched the reasons for translating "unicorn" in the KJB and many other bibles. As you will see, all the facts in a situation must be considered before we pass a judgment of "error". And sometimes all the facts are long lost as well. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html Sometimes when one is shown that they were wrong about one "error", they then take a step back and realize that maybe they could be wrong about other "errors" as well.

God Bless! tongue.gif

[steaver]

Another common "error" that seems easy to convince folks of is Easter. But if we take a step back and research all the facts we can find that it is not quite as simple as it appears on the surface. Here is some good research on this "error" as well http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html For those seeking to know the truth of the matter, you should consider all of the history behind "Easter" before you conclude that it is flat out wrong.

God Bless! :D

[Ed Edwards]

Will Kinney (BB Member number 1023) also known on some
boards as "brandplucked" is IMHO much better than other
KJV Onliests. He at least reads the MVs and posts what
they say. He used to post here. All of his ideas have
been countered here for many years. These counter-arguments
are in the archives or long since passed away.
Nevertheless, his arguments pale compared to mine ;)

Ed's Argument:
The English Versions individually and collectively
constitute the inerrant
written Word of God in English: THE HOLY BIBLE,
preserved perfectly for our generation.

And may God bless Brother Stever DOUBLE!

[steaver]

Thanks Ed,

God's Speed to you as well!

[prophecynut]

Anyone for betting? What will it be for steaver, double the pleasure or double his distress on judgment day? How about a poll. :D

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:

Ed's Argument:
The English Versions individually and collectively
constitute the inerrant
written Word of God in English: THE HOLY BIBLE,
preserved perfectly for our generation.
By logical conclusion then, God has automatically condemned all non-English speaking nations (most of the world) to Hell!!
Only the English have the Word of God!? :rolleyes:
Pretty narrow view of the Great Commission don't you think? Or was William Carey and Adoniram Judson's work (et.al.) all in vain?
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
Another common "error" that seems easy to convince folks of is Easter. But if we take a step back and research all the facts we can find that it is not quite as simple as it appears on the surface. Here is some good research on this "error" as well http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html For those seeking to know the truth of the matter, you should consider all of the history behind "Easter" before you conclude that it is flat out wrong.

God Bless! :D It's not convincing. No matter which way you cut it, pascha means passover. It is unjust to translate a word that means passover any other way but "passover." That is what the word means. In every other place it is translated that way. They had no reason other than their own bias and political expediency to translate it Easter. It was their deliberate mistake, Will Kinney's lame arguments notwithstanding.
DHK

[steaver]

Anyone for betting? What will it be for steaver, double the pleasure or double his distress on judgment day? How about a poll. If I get what I deserve, it will be more than double the distress. I remain hopeful though, for God promisses to wipe away all tears at the end. I pray you do very well brother at the judgment seat of Christ. Say a prayer from your heart for me and I will as well for you.

God Bless!

[Ed Edwards]

DHK: //By logical conclusion then, God has automatically condemned all non-English speaking nations (most of the world) to Hell!!//

That is a very illogical conclusion.
What does this phrase of mine mean to you?
" ... in English ... "

The phrase "in English" allows for God's word to exist in
other languages.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
DHK: //By logical conclusion then, God has automatically condemned all non-English speaking nations (most of the world) to Hell!!//

That is a very illogical conclusion.
What does this phrase of mine mean to you?
" ... in English ... "

The phrase "in English" allows for God's word to exist in
other languages. The assumption "in English" means "only in English," since you have made no allowance for any other language to have God's "inspired" Word. Where is God's inspired Word? The answer is in the KJV. Correct? Thus, by inference it cannot be in any other translations. I already informed you that most other translations have been translated from the Critical Text which differs greatly from the Received Text from which the KJV was translated. Are you then going to insist that these nations do not have the Word of God? I pity you if you take that stance. Most of the world would then never be saved, or have the chance to be saved.
BTW, I was led to the Lord by someone using the Good News for Modern Man.
DHK

[steaver]

DHK,

You are lumping us guys all into one heap. Ed is not a KJV onlyist nor a English onlyist and niether am I as you have defined the term. You are laying preconcieved charges upon others. Many things that you have declared I believe are simply false. I came into the discussion defending the translation unicorn and suddenly I was a KJV onlyist in the most strick definition of the term. In fact this term is so broad that it is hard to even know what it means anymore. This is why I like to just take one "error" at a time rather than get into the accusative dialogues that often create strife rather than informative conversation and education.

God Bless!

[steaver]

They had no reason other than their own bias and political expediency to translate it Easter. It was their deliberate mistake, This can only be an opinion and you have that right to it. But if this is true, then this was an evil act, and if I believed that these translators did their work without regards to what God would think about this "deliberate mistake", then I would not spend another momment teaching or preaching from the KJB. I wouldn't trust any of it.

God Bless!

[DHK]

Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They had no reason other than their own bias and political expediency to translate it Easter. It was their deliberate mistake, This can only be an opinion and you have that right to it. But if this is true, then this was an evil act, and if I believed that these translators did their work without regards to what God would think about this "deliberate mistake", then I would not spend another momment teaching or preaching from the KJB. I wouldn't trust any of it.
God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]It's not necessarily evil. They had to work within the restraints that were put on them. Most of the translators were high Anglican/Catholic. Some of them may not have even been saved. Granted, they were the great scholars of their time, but that doesn't speak for their walk with God. There are many that simply assume they were very Godly men, when the very opposite may very well could be true. I have a book that points to this evidence.

But the reality of the situation was a matter of political correctness. They were bound by their religion, as well as the other religions to be politicall correct. I mentioned some of the more obvious examples before:
church should be assembly.
baptism should be immerse.

Our concepts in ecclesiology would be greatly cleared up and much different in many people's minds if those two words had been translated properly. But instead of translating baptidzo they simply transliterated the word into baptism, which has a wealth of meanings and is very ambiguous. It accomodates all the religions, and certainly would not go against the Anglican or Catholic forms of baptism. Had they faithfully translated it immersion, as the word means, what an uproar it would have caused in those two churches for whom they were working for!!
Call it dishonesty and evil intent if you like. They were bound by political expediency; the political climate of the day. Many words were translated with the bias of their own religious background, and/or because of the political restraints that were put on them at the time. I hope that makes some sense to you.
DHK

[Ed Edwards]

Steaver: "Ed is not a KJV onlyist nor a English onlyist and niether am I as you have defined the term. You are laying preconcieved charges upon others."

Yep. I wonder why i'm receiving a full frontal attack?
Didn't i come in this topic on the same side as DHK?
AH, maybe a case of aerobatic 'jumping to conclusion's ???

Caveat: using 'aerobatic' to modify 'jumping to
conclusions' does NOT imply in any manner that
DHK is NOT doing some other form of 'jumping to
conclusions'.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Steaver: "Ed is not a KJV onlyist nor a English onlyist and niether am I as you have defined the term. You are laying preconcieved charges upon others."

Yep. I wonder why i'm receiving a full frontal attack?
Didn't i come in this topic on the same side as DHK?
AH, maybe a case of aerobatic 'jumping to conclusion's ???

Caveat: using 'aerobatic' to modify 'jumping to
conclusions' does NOT imply in any manner that
DHK is NOT doing some other form of 'jumping to
conclusions'. Perhaps it sounds like I am jumping to conclusions. I can't help but to jump to a conclustion that one would be KJVO, or very close to that position when they would be defending words such as "unicorn" and "Easter." If you defend such errors in translation (and I know you hate the word "errors"), and are not KJVO, then what are you?
DHK

[steaver]

It's not necessarily evil. They had to work within the restraints that were put on them. Most of the translators were high Anglican/Catholic. Some of them may not have even been saved. Granted, they were the great scholars of their time, but that doesn't speak for their walk with God. There are many that simply assume they were very Godly men, when the very opposite may very well could be true. I have a book that points to this evidence.

But the reality of the situation was a matter of political correctness. They were bound by their religion, as well as the other religions to be politicall correct. I mentioned some of the more obvious examples before:
church should be assembly.
baptism should be immerse.

Our concepts in ecclesiology would be greatly cleared up and much different in many people's minds if those two words had been translated properly. But instead of translating baptidzo they simply transliterated the word into baptism, which has a wealth of meanings and is very ambiguous. It accomodates all the religions, and certainly would not go against the Anglican or Catholic forms of baptism. Had they faithfully translated it immersion, as the word means, what an uproar it would have caused in those two churches for whom they were working for!!
Call it dishonesty and evil intent if you like. They were bound by political expediency; the political climate of the day. Many words were translated with the bias of their own religious background, and/or because of the political restraints that were put on them at the time. I hope that makes some sense to you.
DHK Excellent post DHK! Now this is what I am looking for in a deliberation with a fellow brother or sister in Christ. This is a informative post and it carries a probable scenario of thoughts of the seventeenth century translator. This doesn't mean I am ready to embrace it as the way it went down, but at least it is a reasonable alternative view to the issue.

This is what I mean by calling something an "error". Maybe it isn't such a big deal that they said Easter or unicorn if one is able to explain the circumstances. Do these two words change any sort of doctrine? Think about this though, it is just as damaging for a Christian or a non-Christian to hear a leader say "all bibles are riddled with hundreds of errors" as it is to hear one say "all MVs are of the devil".

Both are very misleading and would make a new convert or unbeliever cringe at the thought of even bothering to read any bible.

If one can extract the Gospel and sound doctrines of Christian living out of the bible they use then praise be to God and none of us should be telling others that our English bibles are riddled with errors. Tell them that they need some understanding , that is why God gave us so many outside resources and helps, but let's not tell the world that our bibles are riddled with "error". We should be on the same team, calling any and every bible worthy of sound doctrine "The Word of the Lord".

Even the KJB which I highly value needs some help here and there from the Greek and Hebrew as well as from the historical perspective of the time in which it was written. I don't call this "error" (just me maybe) I see no helpful value in trying to prove it riddled with error in the sight of others. It can only do harm.

Satan is probably having a good laugh at us Christians going at each others bibles. It began with the KJV crowd declaring all MVs are of the devil. So to counter, the MV crowd began to rip appart the KJV. Who is winning? That would be Satan.

Personally I do not care what version my brothers and sisters study out of. The only other bible I ever studied was an NIV and as I said before it left me wanting. The KJB made it easier for me to understand doctrines. I am not sure why, it just makes things clearer for me.

God Bless! graemlins/thumbs.gif

[DHK]

I agree with you that the KJV is still the most accurate translation. For the sake of others, I often say: "A better translation is...," or "the word also has this meaning..." etc.
It is true that in feeding the sheep it is not necessary to blatantly say this book has errors in it. That is not our intent. At the same time our people ought to be educated enough to know that the Word of God in preserved in the original languages, and from those languages we can have a trustworthy translation that we can call the Word of God.

Now to be a "Ruckmanite" that's a different story.
DHK

[steaver]

There is extreme misleading rhetoric coming out of both camps on this issue. This is why I believe we should not lay lables on each individual simply because they defend certain parts of either sides view. I have talked with other folks on these boards which state that the KJV is the WORSE translation ever produced. These folks are in the MV camp so to speak yet I see from your own words that you are not with them on this. Some in the MV camp believe the Critical Text trumps the Recieved Text, yet again you do not believe this either. Maybe we are not in any "camps" but simply desire to understand the truth of these matters knowing full well that each side has taken things a bit to far, some way to far!

God Bless you brother DHK. I sense you are a good keeper of the Word.