Can you solve this one? Acts 13:20

Will, You have never seen the original KJV master script either. It has been lost.

You have not and cannot tell me which KJV edition is correct in Ruth 3:15 because you do not have the original KJV archetype from the hands of the translators.

Things which are different are not the same. including the 1611 vs the 1850 KJV of the Bible.

HankD

 

Boy I tell ya Will,when these so called "bible"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting authorities)believers(ad nauseam)get backed into a corner,they will bring out the most elementary of so called "errors." This is nothing but an attempt to dodge the question at hand;as I,and many other Bible(KJB)believers have pointed out,they BOTH indeed went into the city;read the thing carefuly...

 

Not loopy at all. In fact, you yourself said "I decided." That shows us that you are the one who judged whether something was right or wrong.

You have shown us that you do not accept the KJV as the final authority becuase you believe that the KJV is the only word of God inspite of the fact that the KJV clearly says you are wrong. It clearly identifies other things as the word of God. Those whose final authority is the KJV depend on mistruths and misrepresentations to support their point. They cannot show where the KJV makes such a statement or teaching, and so they create a teaching. Unfortunately, it is only your side who cannot see the obvious flaw in your logic. If the KJV was really your final authority, you would accept that translations other than the KJV are the word of God because that is what the "final authority" of the KJV teaches. To assert that all other versions are corrupt is to use an authority not found in the KJV.

I never said I change them when it suits my own fancy. You made that up and you know it. The reality is that the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in some places. Anybody familiar with Hebrew knows this.

Stick to the facts and truth and abandon this KJVO position.

 

To point out what should be obvious is that that is not what God said. The text does not say both -- one says one thing and one says another. It does not say both. You are plainly dishonest to use this line of reasoning.

 

On the contrary, it is a fabrication of one's mind to say "both". I have read the text carefully and did not find the word "both" in the "thing" (your word).

If they "both" went into the city then why doesn't any edition of the KJV use the word "both"?

HankD

 

Dear Will Kinney,
I have a question for you...what are you defending? The English "King James Version Bible" or the Greek Received Text (Textus Receptus) (and Hebrew)?
The reason that I would like to know is because...do you believe that those who do not speak English just miss out?
Or is it the Greek/Hebrew text that you are defending?
Most everyone that I know (I mean those who care) would never want to do without the King James or the Received Text,... and of course, the team who translated and what became the Received Text did an amazing job.
I have only one complaint about the King James and that it was translated by Trinitarians who possibly unwittingly plugged in way too many extra words to drive home the point, but hence in the King James with the use of italics these added in words are easy to recognize. Often, I find that reading the verses and ignoring the added in words makes much more sense, even if it does not pertain to trinity.
Other than that, I find that the King James is very comforting.
Have you read the Modern King James Version by Jay P. Green, Sr.? I just acquired it, and am loving it thus far.
What do you think of that one? Anyone?

One thing that I am greatly concerned about in these last days is what I have been noticing coming out of the publishing houses...Christian help books that use paraphrased Bibles to support their writings. Please do not misunderstand me. I greatly enjoy these Bibles but I think that is opening up all kinds of false notions-- when used like that. For example, I saw a verse I believe in Proverbs in one of these Bibles and it was clearly a verse that could be misinterpreted, having to do with guilt, and this verse tied in guilt with the evil, making it sound like if you have guilt than you are evil. But when I looked up that verse in other Bibles, that was not even existent. I was shocked at the carelessness of that verse rendering. Yet, for example, if someone wrote a book and used these type of verses...well, it would be just a free for all, make it sound like anything you want Scripture to sound like. I think there is enough of that already. This is just another step toward a complete free for all, believe anything you want.
Very scary.

Finally, however, I want to say that I have noticed one thing that keeps seeming to hold.
When I look at Christian books (and I have a lot), there seems to be a difference between the ones that help a person apply the Christian life using simple easy to read translations versus those that are so difficult to get through and only with great difficulty can apply it to one's own life. These are the ones that usually talk about God, but as though HE were far away.
Well, that type of scholarship is even in Bibles that we have nowadays! Doesn't even the Oxford Annotated Bible explain away the Exodus miracles?
I'm rambling! (Grin) Well, I was in a inductive class one day and the teacher told everyone that God no longer speaks to people in visions and dreams! What do you say to people like that?
And how do you tell them "what about the visions and dreams that God gave me?" One can only wonder what Bible they use.

My point? Mr. Will, do you understand and apply the King James to your life? Or are you worried for the sake of souls? Or are you on a quest because of doubt? Please don't worry. No matter what translation I read, I always pray first and trust that the Holy Spirit will reveal His Truth to me, for only Jesus reveals Truth.
HE is the One Who will guide you and me.
Consider those people in the New Testament...they didn't have too much literature, yet, God helped them make it.
Or what about the faith Chapter? Hebrews 11.
All these folks believed and made it and they did not see what even those in the New Testament saw. Yet, they believed everything God said.

Guard the treasure, Will. I too see things getting out of hand, but it is people like you who are perserving what is good. And yes, you do see an individual here who is pretty torn up about things. You are helping to perserve a Bible that is only a few hundred years old...when I look at the big picture, most Christians don't think Christianity started until the 1500's. (grin) Look in any Christian book store. What about all the saints that have gone before? There are many. But they are all discounted because they were Catholics. One can see how much good was rejected because of hostility and going the opposite extreme direction.

Have a great day in Jesus.

 

I see nobody has of yet answered my question, and the thread has degenerated into still another battle between those defending the inspired Word of God and members of the sect that only defends any given one of the several editions of just one errant translation of it. Which means it isn't a discussion, much less a debate. It's two sides talking at each other--which is frustrating and annoying the first 947 times one engages in the useless exercise, but after that, is less exciting than counting ceiling tiles.

 

Some scholars believe there is nothing wrong with the dating. It depends on where one starts. For instance, if counting from the 400 years leading up to David's reign, and the 40 years wandering in the wilderness and the period that elapsed between crossing the Jordan and dividing the land as mentioned in Joshua, we have the time period of the KJV, 450 years. "about the space" indicates that the time span is not an actual count, but approximation. In my mind, it is not a big deal. Similar to the arguments about the three days and three nights. There is not a problem if one considers the Jewish reckoning of time, where part of a day is considered a day, and not 24 hours.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I have to agree with Taufgesinnter's most recent post. Of all the discussions I've seen on this board, and others, the KJVO-MV debate is the most repetitive and the least productive. It is also probably the saddest and most divisive issue troubling the church today, since it pits one group of Bible-loving Christians against another. Too bad we can't team-up against those who really are the enemies of God's word, rather than snipe at each other. Oh well...

 

Not so, we don't just snipe. I believe I have learned a great deal from these dicussions about the history of the Word of God its inspiration, preservation, transmission, translation, etc.
Many well-educated and well read Christians have contributed to this subject as well as those not so well educated but with a great degree of insight.

One benefit is that almost NOTHING goes up on the BB concerning this matter with out a challenge of documentation. I have myriad of notes and documentation.

At first I was disturbed at the in-fighting but things have calmed down considerably since I came on over two years ago.

I don't know about anyone else but this forum has been both a challenge and a source of enlightenment for me. Yes we usually get hijacked or wander off into other related subjects but even then we have all learned and contributed to each others study of and about the Scriptures.

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.

HankD

 

I know it does not say "both," quit trying to dodge the bullet.Simple question,did they or did they not both go into the city??? Yes or NO.

No need to go off into left field with ad hominem attacks,silly exegesis,or any BAO rhetoric,just YES OR NO..

 

I know it does not say "both," quit trying to dodge the bullet.Simple question,did they or did they not both go into the city??? Yes or NO.

No need to go off into left field with ad hominem attacks,silly exegesis,or any BAO rhetoric,just YES OR NO.. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, probably. But that's not the point. Would a translation that said "they both went into the city" be an improvement? Yes or No? And why? No need to go off into left field with ad hominem attacks,silly exegesis,or any BAO rhetoric,just YES OR NO..

Which word, "he" or "she" did the original author write, and which is something other than what he wrote? Or are you saying it's OK to change/add to scripture as long as it makes sense to you personally?

 

And that is exactly the point. You know it does not say both, but you want to change the topic. One KJV says "he" and one says "she." None say both. Therefore, which one is what God inspired?? He did not inspire "both;" he inspired either "he" or "she." Now, to use your own words, "quit trying to dodge the bullet."

That is exactly what you have done in this whole forum ... ad hominem attacks, silly exegesis, and the whole banana farm. You will not answer simple questions, as you have demonstrated for us right here.

 

No probaly about it,they both in fact went into the city.But at least you was honest.

 

Yes, I was honest. Can you be, and answer my question now?

 

N-nonsense.Just answer yes or no.Did they or did they not both end up in the city.Yes or NO????? What say ye???

 

No.
Dont know(and neither do you.)
No.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Why not?

</font>[/QUOTE]I don't need to know. The point is, one is what was originally written, the other is not. One is the "inspired" word, the other is not. Surely you can see this, despite your attempts at obtuseness.

</font>[/QUOTE]Then who cares if "both" went into the city? We're talking about which word is original, which is not - not about the events that transpired.

 

I don't know if they both went into the city at the same time.

I do know that the Hebrew uses feminine singular "she" went to the city in Ruth 3:15.

HankD