1. 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!

AV 1611 and the Church of Rome No. 2

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by gb93433, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK, Michelle. Show us, in the bible (your choice of translation and edition), where God did/does. We've all heard you say it over and over again, so put up or shut up.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  2. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Way way back in this thread, AA stated:

    "Why not forget the Apocrypha being between the KJB's testaments,and deal with the fact that the Alexandrian mss(the ones behind todays "bibles") have the Apocryphal books in BOTH testaments as Holy Writ..."

    However, those Greek Orthodox MSS of the OT+NT that contained the Byzantine Text also oncluded the Apocryphal books, and *not* between the testaments.
     
  3. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, c'mon, Ziggy we all know why that gets glossed over...

    I was thinking about that last night actually, and the only reason that I could think of would be that certain individuals would be forced to deal with the unorthodox (no pun intended) Trinitarianism of the Greek Orthodox (as well as the rest of their theology), and that isn't something they could possibly countenance...
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The actual point is, Michelle, is that you keep harping about the translators of the new versions.

    This is the only reason that the questionable reputation of the KJV translators was brought up. If you had not have claimed that evil men have corrupted scriptures, then the comparison would never have happened.

    Do not get upset when you open the door.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
     
  5. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, your statement is false and very untrue.

    God bless!
     
  6. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
  7. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    This whole thread is IRRELEVANT to lies and false beliefs. If you believe things in spite of reality, then facts are IRRELEVANT. Let's believe what we want to believe.
     
  8. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    (1) You should look up the word "irrelevant" in the dictionary. Nothing is irrelevant in and of itself, but only in relation to something else. A thread about the AV 1611 and the Angligans is not "irrelevant" as to the AV 1611 and the Anglicans, and it is absurd to claim otherwise.

    (2) You continue to attack God's Word by claiming that his Scripture is not Scripture, at least as pertains to many translations, and perhaps with regard to portions of the KJB that you dislike. That is wrong.
     
  9. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Manchester, you just earned and AMEN!!!
     
  10. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle,

    What is unbelievable is that you think that you can play God and dictate to everyone else that the KJV (probably 1769 in your case) is "the truth that God has given us his infallible, inerrant words of truth perfectly in our own language." Do you have that authority? When did God put you in charge of His word?

    Your whole soapbox is nothing more than a glamourized case of idolatry. You have elevated the work of man (a particular translation of a compilation of different Greek manuscripts, along with the translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscript...and the Apocrypha, in the original editions) to a position of worship. Don't believe it? Go back and read your posts...just your posts, not the quotes you inserted, or the endless reams of verses you are so fond of pasting to try to give weight to your arguements. Read what you have actually written, and you will see what everyone else does.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  11. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    manchester quoted in this second thread:

    (1) You should look up the word "irrelevant" in the dictionary. Nothing is irrelevant in and of itself, but only in relation to something else. A thread about the AV 1611 and the Angligans is not "irrelevant" as to the AV 1611 and the Anglicans, and it is absurd to claim otherwise.

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


    I have, and do understand the definition of the word irrelevent and have used it quite appropriately:


    Web

    Definitions of irrelevant on the Web:

    having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations"
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn


    Evidence not relating or applicable to the matter in issue; not supporting the issue.
    www.indygov.org/courts/glossary.htm


    Evidence not sufficiently related to the matter in issue.
    www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mc/judicial/circuit/glossary/glossary.html


    is not to relieve, not to lighten. Irrelevant matter is that which does not help to bear the burden or make it lighter; something not pertinent or not material to the point in question. (Latin levis, light.)
    www.bootlegbooks.com/Reference/PhraseAndFable/data/663.html


    1 an argument which addresses more than one sub-sub-field of philosophy, but is not written by an Eminence.
    www.cs.umd.edu/~mikeoda/phldef.htm

    Taken from link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:irrelevant


    The stated intent/purpose indicated in the original post of the thread as follows, as to which I have continually been reffering to:


    --------------------------------------------------
    Hank quoted in the first thread:

    I would like to start another thread on the Apocrypha and request that it not be shut down for any reason on my part but only at the moderators discretion.

    But not just the Apocrypha but also to other items surrounding the AV1611 which were Church of Rome origin affecting, infecting the AV1611.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  12. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle, I think you need to go back and do a little research, because your "facts" are far from being fact. I hate to tell you, sister, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops Bible, and many others were very much the Word of God (and you even stated so in another thread in another forum). The problem is this, when you start elevating the work of men, such as the translation known as the KJV, as the only preserved Word of God, it is not only factually incorrect, it is historically incorrect. It is also known as idolatry when something is placed so far up on a pedastle that it becomes our main focus, and not the Lord. You're on a slippery path, sister, and I would advise you to do much more studying before continuing to elevate something so high without evidence of your position.
     
  13. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    The problem is this, when you start elevating the work of men, such as the translation known as the KJV, as the only preserved Word of God, it is not only factually incorrect, it is historically incorrect. It is also known as idolatry when something is placed so far up on a pedastle that it becomes our main focus, and not the Lord. You're on a slippery path, sister, and I would advise you to do much more studying before continuing to elevate something so high without evidence of your position.
    --------------------------------------------------


    What is within the KJB?

    What is it we are to study?

    Who is it we are to worship?

    Who is to be our focus?

    How is it we come to know Him?

    How do/can we know His will?

    How are we to know what to obey?

    How are we to be kept from deception?

    How do we grow in the Lord?

    How are we comforted?

    How are we convicted of our sins?

    How do we know what is to come?

    How do we know what has been in the past?


    We are to put God's words of life on a pedastal, for they are those which testify of Jesus Christ our Lord who we worship and praise and owe our entire life to, as we have been bought with a price. He has given us a sharp sword, sharper than any two edged sword for our defense and protection. This can only be found in the KJB in our English language today. Are you going to armour yourself with the sharp sword that He has given you?


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle: "We are to put God's words of life on a pedastal, for they are those which testify of Jesus Christ our Lord who we worship and praise and owe our entire life to, as we have been bought with a price. He has given us a sharp sword, sharper than any two edged sword for our defense and protection."

    Amen, Sister -- Preach it!

    These words of life for we who
    speak in English and live in
    the 21st century (2001-2100) are found the
    Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB):

    I shall pick up the Shield of Faith
    and beat the dickens out of the Father
    of Lies.
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    The answer is found in Matthew 5:16, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

    That is the Bible the world sees.
     
  16. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    From Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. (1999)

    Translation - 1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.

    A TRANSLATION is a rendering of the same ideas in a different language from the original: a translation from Greek into English.

    A VERSION is a translation, esp. of the Bible, or else an account of something illustrating a particular point of view:
     
  17. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle, you state that the only pure words of God can be found in the King James Bible. Again, this is incorrect. Your long lines of questions are just an attempt to avoid answering the question of historical proof. Again, I will state as I have stated before. To use the KJV as your defense of the KJV is not a defense. There must be historical proof to set the foundation that it is indeed the "only preserved, inerrant, pure words of God". You have yet to prove this historically. The KJV does not teach one version onlyism. It was an attempt by the Anglicans to have a Bible without Catholic influences, yet, if you look at the Anglican church, it is nothing more than a protestant version of the same church with the pontiff of the church being the reigning King or Queen of England. Historical proof doesn't establish that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the Word of God, either.
    I take comfort in the Word of God, THE PURE WORDS OF GOD in the form of not only the KJV, but the NIV, the NASB, the NKJV, and several other translations.
    To be short, all of your questions can be answered with any of the legitimate translations of the Word of God in English. They aren't limited to the KJV ONLY.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother AVL1984 -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    Additionally, the HCSB = Holman Christian
    Standard Bible, is written for the
    English of the time in which we live.
    Further I note neither the Church of
    Rome nor the Church of England provided
    translators for the HCSB.

    The HCSB is the inerrant written word of
    God for us now. But the HCSB is NOT
    the only book that is the inerrant written word of God.

    [​IMG] Praise Iesus! [​IMG]
     
  19. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Right you are michelle. I have used all the arguments that the KJVO use but have adapted them to the KJV and the men who translated it and the Institution from whence it came.

    For instance: The KJVO say "Your Bible has been poisoned at the well and corrupted by the Alexandrians and their manuscripts" (these are not necessarily your exact words but are the heart and essence of the KJVO attack upon the Word of God in modern English).

    I and others have used several legitimate and historical facts to show that the same can be said of the KJV (1611-1850) having been "poisoned at the well" by romish things using examples of the KJV Scripture which were mistranslated to perhaps support the view of the incorrect mode and meaning of water baptism and a choice of words supporting the romish view of a scaredotal priesthood ("bishop") as two examples.

    All these and many others mistranslations of which anabaptists, after complaining, lost body parts and even their lives for opposing these romish words and concepts encapsulated into the English AV by the high churchmen of the Anglo-Catholic Church.

    No translation is "pure" and "perfect" in the KJVO meaning and sense of "pure" and "perfect". In that meaning some are in fact less perfect than others.

    The "less than perfect" being the taint of Rome as is in fact every English translation (Some of our anabaptist and Puritan brethren objected to the word "church" of Pagan origin rather than "congregation" of earlier English translations).

    Another method I have used is to expose the errors of the KJVO at the well itself: Particularly the absurdities of "advanced revelation" and "re-inspiration" of translated Scriptures.

    All this apart from the fact that in the 21st century even the latest modernizations of the KJV (except for the NKJV) IMO have not been sufficient to bring it to God's original standard of "koine", The Scriptures in the common tongue for the common man.

    While I cannot see into your heart, your words and methods prove IMO that you are unwise.

    This why I am answering the KJVO according to their own criteria concerning the Modern Versions as a taste of their own unwise medicine.

    Your loving brother...

    HankD
     
  20. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From Doug Kutilek, "As I See It," 6:2 February 2003

    AS I SEE IT
     
Loading...